Impact of right‐handedness on anaesthetic sensitivity, intra‐operative awareness and postoperative mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anatomical, neurological and behavioural research has suggested differences between the brains of right- and non-right-handed individuals, including differences in brain structure, electroencephalogram patterns, explicit memory and sleep architecture. Some studies have also found decreased longevity in left-handed individuals. We therefore aimed to determine whether handedness independently affects the relationship between volatile anaesthetic concentration and the bispectral index, the incidence of definite or possible intra-operative awareness with explicit recall, or postoperative mortality. We studied 5585 patients in this secondary analysis of data collected in a multicentre clinical trial. There were 4992 (89.4%) right-handed and 593 (10.6%) non-right-handed patients. Handedness was not associated with (a) an alteration in anaesthetic sensitivity in terms of the relationship between the bispectral index and volatile anaesthetic concentration (estimated effect on the regression relationship -0.52 parallel shift; 95% CI -1.27 to 0.23, p = 0.17); (b) the incidence of intra-operative awareness with 26/4992 (0.52%) right-handed vs 1/593 (0.17%) non-right-handed (difference = 0.35%; 95% CI -0.45 to 0.63%; p = 0.35); or (c) postoperative mortality rates (90-day relative risk for non-right-handedness 1.19, 95% CI 0.76-1.86; p = 0.45). Thus, no change in anaesthetic management is indicated for non-right-handed patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".