Observational Study of Dexmedetomidine for Hysteroscopy, Cystoscopy and Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dexmedetomidine shows promise of being an airway-stable drug. It is approved in Australia for procedural sedation. However, it is important to note that in the study on which this indication is based, all the subjects received a local anaesthetic block before their procedure or surgery. In this regard, as Health Canada has explicitly stated, further evidence still needs to be gained for the use of dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation without accompanying nerve blocks. The purpose of this current proof-of-concept, observational study is to provide further information about dexmedetomidine in three regards. First, can dexmedetomidine be used for procedural sedation per se (i.e. without local anaesthetic blocks)? Second, as opposed to results being averaged out over a wide variety of procedures, the current study examined the feasibility of dexmedetomidine-based procedural sedation for three specific procedures. Third, the current study aims to add to the pool of information regarding the appropriate dose of dexmedetomidine. As described in the dexmedetomidine product information, the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale grades sedation from 5 (alert) down to 1 (deepest level of sedation). In the study on which dexmedetomidine's indication for procedural sedation is based, patients needed only to achieve a score of 4 and, thus, the approved product information recommends a loading dose of 1.0 µg/kg followed by a maintenance infusion of 0.2 to 1.0 µg/kg/hour. This current study aims to add to the literature regarding the safety of dexmedetomidine when used at higher than recommended doses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".