MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317422852 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001152

The Feasibility of a Completely Automated Total IV Anesthesia Drug Delivery System for Cardiac Surgery

2016· article· en· W2317422852 on OpenAlexaff
Cédrick Zaouter, Thomas M. Hemmerling, Romain Lanchon, Emanuela Valoti, Alain Rémy, Sébastien Leuillet, Alexandre Ouattara

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBispectral indexAnesthesiaPropofolRemifentanilHypnosisCardiac surgeryCardiopulmonary bypassConfidence intervalSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In this pilot study, we tested a novel automatic anesthesia system for closed-loop administration of IV anesthesia drugs for cardiac surgical procedures with cardiopulmonary bypass. This anesthesia drug delivery robot integrates all 3 components of general anesthesia: hypnosis, analgesia, and muscle relaxation. METHODS: Twenty patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass were enrolled. Propofol, remifentanil, and rocuronium were administered using closed-loop feedback control. The main objective was the feasibility of closed-loop anesthesia defined as successful automated cardiac anesthesia without manual override by the attending anesthesiologist. Secondary qualitative observations were clinical and controller performances. The clinical performance of hypnosis control was the efficacy to maintain a bispectral index (BIS) of 45. To evaluate the hypnosis performance, BIS values were stratified into 4 categories: "excellent," "good," "poor," and "inadequate" hypnosis control defined as BIS values within 10%, ranging from 11% to 20%, ranging from 21% to 30%, or >30% of the target value, respectively. The clinical performance of analgesia was the efficacy to maintain NociMap values close to 0. The analgesia performance was assessed classifying the NociMap values in 3 pain control groups: -33 to +33 representing excellent pain control, -34 to -66 and +34 to +66 representing good pain control, and -67 to -100 and +67 to +100 representing insufficient pain control. The controller performance was calculated using the Varvel parameters. RESULTS: Robotic anesthesia was successful in 16 patients, which is equivalent to 80% (97.5% confidence interval [CI], 53%-95%) of the patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Four patients were excluded from the final analysis because of technical problems with the automated anesthesia delivery system. The secondary qualitative observations revealed that the clinical performance of hypnosis allowed an excellent and good control during 70% (97.5% CI, 63%-76%) of maintenance time and an insufficient clinical performance of analgesia for only 3% (97.5% CI, 1%-6%) of maintenance time. CONCLUSIONS: The completely automated closed-loop system tested in this investigation could be used successfully and safely for cardiac surgery necessitating cardiopulmonary bypass. The results of the present trial showed satisfactory clinical performance of anesthesia control.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations61
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207