Modern Inhalational Anesthetics for Refractory Status Epilepticus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our goal was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of modern inhalational anesthetic agents for refractory status epilepticus and their impact on seizure control. METHODS: All articles from MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, HealthStar, Scopus, Cochrane Library, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to March 2014), reference lists of relevant articles, and gray literature were searched. The strength of evidence was adjudicated using both the Oxford and Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Education methodology by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Overall, 19 studies were identified, with 16 manuscripts and 3 meeting abstracts. A total of 46 patients were treated. Adult (n=28) and pediatric patients (n=18) displayed 92.9% and 94.4% seizure control with treatment, respectively. Isoflurane was used in the majority of cases. Hypotension was the only complication described. CONCLUSIONS: Oxford level 4, Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Education D evidence exists to support the use of isoflurane in refractory status epilepticus to obtain burst suppression. Insufficient data exist to comment on the efficacy of desflurane and xenon at this time.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".