MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077213120 · doi:10.1109/embc.2012.6346798

Real-time cardiorespiratory coherence detects antinociception during general anesthesia

2012· article· en· W2077213120 on OpenAlexaff
Chris J. Brouse, Walter Karlen, Guy A. Dumont, Dorothy Myers, Erin Cooke, Jonathan Stinson, Joanne Lim, J. Mark Ansermino

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNociceptionAnesthesiaHeart rate variabilityBolus (digestion)Heart rateMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessAnestheticRespiratory rateBlood pressureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart rate variability (HRV) may provide anesthesiologists with a noninvasive tool for monitoring nociception during general anesthesia. A novel real-time cardiorespiratory coherence (CRC) algorithm has been developed to analyze the strength of linear coupling between heart rate (HR) and respiration. CRC values range from 0 (low coherence, strong nociception) to 1 (high coherence, no nociception). The algorithm uses specially designed filters to operate in real-time, minimizing computational complexity and time delay. In the standard HRV high frequency band of 0.15 - 0.4 Hz, the real-time delay is only 5.25 - 3.25 s. We have assessed the algorithm's response to 60 anesthetic bolus events (a large dose of anesthetics given over a short time; strongly antinociceptive) recorded in 47 pediatric patients receiving general anesthesia. Real-time CRC responded strongly to bolus events, changing by an average of 30%. For comparison, three traditional measures of HRV (LF/HF ratio, SDNN, and RMSSD) responded on average by only 3.8%, 14%, and 3.9%, respectively. Finally, two traditional clinical measures of nociception (HR and blood pressure) responded on average by only 3.9% and 0.91%, respectively. CRC may thus be used as a real-time nociception monitor during general anesthesia.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207