Etomidate speech and memory test ( <i>e</i> SAM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The intracarotid amobarbital procedure (IAP) is an important part of comprehensive investigation of patients who are candidates for surgical treatment of epilepsy. Owing to repeated and lengthy shortages of amobarbital, causing delays in elective surgery, attempts have been made to find a suitable alternative anesthetic. The authors report their experience using etomidate, a widely used agent for the induction of anesthesia. METHODS: Sixteen consecutive patients requiring IAP to evaluate memory or to lateralize speech underwent the procedure using etomidate. Prior to the procedure a catheter was placed in the internal carotid artery and an angiogram was performed. EEG was recorded and read online by an electroencephalographer. An anesthetist injected the drug, administered by bolus followed by an infusion, which was maintained until each speech measure had been sampled and new memory items had been introduced. The infusion was then stopped and testing continued as in a standard IAP. RESULTS: In all cases (30 hemispheres) contralateral hemiplegia followed injection. EEG slow waves were observed in every injected hemisphere, with some contralateral slowing anteriorly in 18. Global aphasia with preserved attention and cooperation followed dominant-hemisphere injections. These phenomena remained during infusion, and upon its termination returned gradually to baseline over a period of about 4 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Etomidate is a viable alternative to amobarbital, and its administration by bolus followed by infusion offers an improvement over the traditional intracarotid amobarbital procedure. Cognitive tests can be performed during an assured hemianesthesia of the injected hemisphere.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".