Volatile Anesthetics. Is a New Player Emerging in Critical Care Sedation?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Volatile anesthetic agent use in the intensive care unit, aided by technological advances, has become more accessible to critical care physicians. With increasing concern over adverse patient consequences associated with our current sedation practice, there is growing interest to find non-benzodiazepine-based alternative sedatives. Research has demonstrated that volatile-based sedation may provide superior awakening and extubation times in comparison with current intravenous sedation agents (propofol and benzodiazepines). Volatile agents may possess important end-organ protective properties mediated via cytoprotective and antiinflammatory mechanisms. However, like all sedatives, volatile agents are capable of deeply sedating patients, which can have respiratory depressant effects and reduce patient mobility. This review seeks to critically appraise current volatile use in critical care medicine including current research, technical consideration of their use, contraindications, areas of controversy, and proposed future research topics.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it