Is Propofol a Friend or a Foe of the Pediatric Intensivist? Description of Propofol Use in a PICU*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to describe the practice patterns of nonprocedural propofol use in a single-center referral PICU. The secondary objective is to describe the rate of concordance of propofol use with the PICU local practice of a maximum mean rate of 4 mg/kg/hr and a maximum duration of 24 hours and to assess for signs and symptoms of propofol infusion syndrome. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive cohort study. SETTING: PICU of a tertiary care teaching hospital and referral hospital for the Western Canada. PATIENTS: Children 1 month to 17 years old who received a nonprocedural propofol infusion between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three infusions (representing 210 unique patients) were included in the study. The median average infusion rate (interquartile range) including boluses was 2.7 mg/kg/hr (1.9-3.6 mg/kg/hr), and the mean infusion duration (SD) was 10.3 hours (6.7 hr). Eighty-seven percent and 98% of infusions were concordant with PICU intensivists self-reported practice maximum rate and duration, respectively. No cases of propofol-related infusion syndrome or deaths associated with propofol infusions were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The use of propofol infusions was in concordance with PICU local practice, and propofol infusion syndrome did not developed in patients. In agreement with previous recommendations, propofol infusions in the PICU appear to be safe when limiting doses to 4 mg/kg/hr and for less than 24 hours; however, appropriate monitoring of adverse effects is still warranted due to absence of robust evidence.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".