MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardioprotection with Volatile Anesthetics: Mechanisms and Clinical Implications

2005· review· en· W2092751984 on OpenAlex
Stefan De Hert, Franco Turani, Sanjiv Mathur, David F. Stowe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSudbury Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatile anestheticMedicinePerioperativeCardioprotectionAnesthesiaCardiac surgeryIschemiaCardiologyAnesthetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac surgery and some noncardiac procedures are associated with a significant risk of perioperative cardiac morbid events. Experimental data indicate that clinical concentrations of volatile general anesthetics protect the myocardium from ischemia and reperfusion injury, as shown by decreased infarct size and a more rapid recovery of contractile function on reperfusion. These anesthetics may also mediate protective effects in other organs, such as the brain and kidney. Recently, a number of reports have indicated that these experimentally observed protective effects may also have clinical implications in cardiac surgery. However, the impact of the use of volatile anesthetics on outcome measures, such as postoperative mortality and recovery in cardiac and noncardiac surgery, is yet to be determined.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.310 · 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