MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327015079 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e318282dc70

A Comparison of Two Doses of Mannitol on Brain Relaxation During Supratentorial Brain Tumor Craniotomy

2013· article· en· W2327015079 on OpenAlexaff
Charlotte Quentin, Sonia Charbonneau, Robert Moumdjian, Alexandre Lallo, Alain Bouthilier, Marie‐Pierre Fournier‐Gosselin, Michel W. Bojanowski, Monique Ruel, Marie‐Pierre Sylvestre, François Girard

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMannitolCraniotomyAnesthesiaBrain tumorOdds ratioSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Twenty percent mannitol is widely used to reduce brain bulk and facilitate the surgical approach in intracranial surgery. However, a dose-response relationship has not yet been established. In this study, we compared the effects of 0.7 and 1.4 g·kg(-1) mannitol on brain relaxation during elective supratentorial brain tumor surgery. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we enrolled 80 patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy for tumor resection. Patients were assigned to receive 0.7 g·kg(-1) (group L) or 1.4 g·kg(-1) (group H) of 20% mannitol at surgical incision. Brain relaxation was assessed immediately after opening of the dura on a scale ranging from 1 to 4 (1 = perfectly relaxed, 2 = satisfactorily relaxed, 3 = firm brain, 4 = bulging brain). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, and brain tumor localization or size. In group L 52.5% of patients and in group H 77.5% of patients presented a midline shift (P = 0.03). The median scores of brain relaxation (interquantile range) were 2.0 (1.75-3) and 2.0 (1-3) (P = 0.16 for patients in group L and H, respectively). We then used a proportional odds model to adjust for this unbalanced distribution and to assess the group effect (low-dose versus high-dose mannitol) on brain relaxation scores. When adjusted for the presence of midline shift, the use of a higher dose of mannitol resulted in an odds ratio of 2.5 (P = 0.03). This indicates that, considering the effect of a midline shift, the odds of having a 1-level improvement in relaxation score in patients who received a higher dose of mannitol (group H) was 2.5 times as large as the odds for the low-dose group. The odds ratio of 0.29 (P = 0.007) for the midline shift indicates that its occurrence was associated with a higher probability of a lower relaxation score, on average. CONCLUSION: In this study, we show that 1.4 g·kg(-1) of 20% mannitol results in equivalent brain relaxation scores as 0.7 g·kg(-1) in patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial brain tumor. When corrected for the presence of midline shift, this study reveals that patients in the high-dose group had significantly more chances of obtaining a better relaxation score compared with the lower-dose group.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations53
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207