[Effect of remifentanil on intraoperative ECoG--a comparison with sevoflurane].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In surgeries for epilepsy, electrocorticography (ECoG) enables tailored resection of the epileptogenic brain and pharmacological stimulation should be employed in surgeries under general anesthesia. To identify the efficacy of continuous remifentanil in surgeries for epilepsy, ECoG findings with remifentanil and those with sevoflurane were compared. METHODS: Sixteen patients with intractable epilepsy were included with institutional ethics committee approval and informed consent. General anesthesia was induced and maintained with sevoflurane, remifentanil and rocuronium. After dural opening, ECoG recordings were obtained before stimulation, with sevoflurane-stimulation (ET-sevoflurane 2.5%) and with remifentanil-stimulation (0.7 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) for 2 min followed by 0.35 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)). RESULTS: In 11 of the 16 cases, activation was confirmed with remifentanil and numbers of spikes with remifentanil- and sevoflurane-stimulation were larger than those before stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: There have been some reports on bolus remifentanil on ECoG but not on its continuous infusion. This is the first report of the effect of remifentanil on ECoG as compared to sevoflurane. In this study, continuous infusion of remifentanil showed a stimulating effect on ECoG with the same potency as sevoflurane. Remifentanil may be used as an alternative to sevoflurane.
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) | 0.002 | 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".