Bispectral Analysis During Procedural Sedation in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to determine the maximum depth of sedation achieved, as measured by the bispectral (BIS) index monitor, for pediatric patients undergoing procedural sedation in a pediatric emergency department. METHODS: This prospective, blinded, observational study was conducted in a tertiary pediatric emergency department. Procedural sedation and analgesia were performed in the standard manner, with the addition of blinded BIS index monitoring. In addition, both the sedating physician and the procedural physician recorded their clinical impression of the maximum depth of sedation. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 50 patients was enrolled. The median age was 9.2 years (range, 3-15 y). The mean nadir BIS index was 43.1 ± 17.4 (SD), with a 95% confidence interval from 37.8 to 48.4. This was significantly lower than the BIS index value that is considered to reflect general anesthesia (<60; P > 0.0001). Almost 80% of the analyzed patient sedations were classified as having achieved general anesthesia. When comparing the sedating physician and the procedural physician's clinical assessment of maximal depth of sedation with the nadir BIS index value, there was only slight agreement between the 2 groups (κ statistics, 0.19 and 0.057, respectively). Ninety-three percent of the sedating physicians and 88% of the procedural physicians underestimated the maximum depth of sedation of their patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that most pediatric procedural sedation patients spend at least a period in a general anesthetic state. During most procedural sedation, the physicians involved are likely underestimating the maximal depth of sedation for their 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".