A pilot trial of BIS monitoring for procedural sedation in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Procedural sedation is common in the ED. However, there is no objective physiologic parameter available to monitor a patient's conscious state. The Bispectral Index (BIS) monitor has been validated as an objective measure of depth of anaesthesia. We studied the BIS monitor for this role in procedural sedation. METHODS: A prospective, observational study with convenience sampling of adult patients in ED who underwent procedural sedation. Patients were treated according to standard practice and sedated as determined by the treating physician. Treating physicians were blinded to the BIS value. BIS values were recorded and compared to the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAAS). Upon recovery, patients were asked about recall of events while they were sedated. RESULTS: Twelve patients were enrolled and 110 paired readings from 11 patients (7 male) were obtained. It was not possible to obtain readings from one patient. The mean age was 58 years (range 20-94). The Spearman correlation between BIS and OAAS was 0.027 (95% CI -0.582-0.617). For the three patients who received propofol, the correlation was 1.0. There were no episodes of explicit recall of events during the period of sedation. CONCLUSIONS: BIS monitoring is feasible in the ED. Our small study suggests that there is a poor correlation between BIS values and the OAAS scale. Larger studies are required to further explore this relationship. Further developments in brain monitoring technology are also needed before this form of monitoring becomes clinically useful for procedural sedation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".