MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085501345 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2011.2177497

A Direct Dynamic Dose-Response Model of Propofol for Individualized Anesthesia Care

2011· article· en· W2085501345 on OpenAlexafffund
Jin‐Oh Hahn, Guy A. Dumont, J. Mark Ansermino

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPropofolAkaike information criterionAnesthesiaPharmacodynamicsMedicinePharmacokineticsSteady state (chemistry)MathematicsPharmacologyChemistryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an effort to open up new opportunities in individualized anesthesia care, this paper presents a dynamic dose-response model of propofol that relates propofol dose (i.e., infusion rate) directly to a clinical effect. The proposed model consists of a first-order equilibration dynamics plus a nonlinear Hill equation model, each representing the transient distribution of propofol dose from the plasma to the effect site and the steady-state dose-effect relationship. Compared to traditional pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PKPD) models, the proposed model has structural parsimony and comparable predictive capability, making it more attractive than its PKPD counterpart for identifying an individualized dose-response model in real-time. The efficacy of the direct dynamic dose-response model over a traditional PKPD model was assessed using a mixed effects modeling analysis of the electroencephalogram (EEG)-based state entropty (SE) response to intravenous propofol administration in 34 pediatric subjects. An improvement in the mean-squared error and r(2) value of individual prediction, as well as the Akaike's information criterion (AIC) was seen with the direct dynamic dose-response model.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207