MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152028862 · doi:10.1177/229255030301100408

How Long does it Take Phentolamine to Reverse Adrenaline-Induced Vasoconstriction in the Finger and Hand? A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Study: The Dalhousie Project Experimental Phase

2003· article· en· W2152028862 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Trefor Nodwell, Donald H. Lalonde

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Contouring and Surgery
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhentolamineMedicineLidocaineSalineVasoconstrictionAnesthesiaSurgeryGynecologyPropranolol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the Dalhousie Plastic Surgery Alumni Reunion at the Atlantic Plastic Surgery meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in September 2001, 22 subjects, including 18 certified hand surgeons, were injected with 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline in three places in one finger of each hand. One hour later, the same sites of one hand were injected with phentolamine (1 mg in 1 mL), and the other hand was injected with saline. Subjects were blinded as to which hand received the phentolamine. It took an average of 85 min for the adrenaline-injected fingers to return to normal colour after phentolamine injection. It took an average of 320 min for the adrenaline-injected fingers to return to normal colour after saline injection (no phentolamine). We also observed that lidocaine with adrenaline provided an average of 549 min of anesthesia in nonphentolamine-injected fingers. Phentolamine consistently and reliably reversed adrenaline-induced vasoconstriction in the finger.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations117
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicBody Contouring and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207