Effect of Midazolam on Memory During Fiberoptic Gastroscopy Under Conscious Sedation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As the fiberoptic gastroscopy using midazolam is being in widespread use, the exact nature of midazolam on memory should be clarified. We intended to examine whether midazolam causes selective anterograde amnesia and what impact it has on other aspects of memory and general cognitive function. METHODS: We recruited healthy subjects undergoing fiberoptic gastroscopy under conscious sedation. At baseline, history taking for retrograde amnesia and the Korean version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment were performed. A man's name and address were given immediately after intravenous midazolam administration. After gastroscopy, the subjects were asked to recall those items. By the time they had fully recovered consciousness, the same test was repeated along with the Korean version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and a test for retrograde amnesia. RESULTS: A total of 30 subjects were enrolled in this study. Subjects with high-dose midazolam showed lower scores in the immediate and delayed recall of "a man's name and address" compared with those with low-dose midazolam. The midazolam dose was inversely correlated with the delayed recall scores of "a man's name and address." On full recovery of consciousness, the subjects did not exhibit any of anterograde or retrograde amnesia. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that midazolam causes transient selective anterograde amnesia in a dose-dependent manner.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".