Sedation of Patients With Disorders of Consciousness During Neuroimaging: Effects on Resting State Functional Brain Connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To reduce head movement during resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging, post-coma patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) are frequently sedated with propofol. However, little is known about the effects of this sedation on the brain connectivity patterns in the damaged brain essential for differential diagnosis. In this study, we aimed to assess these effects. METHODS: Using resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging 3T data obtained over several years of scanning patients for diagnostic and research purposes, we employed a seed-based approach to examine resting state connectivity in higher-order (default mode, bilateral external control, and salience) and lower-order (auditory, sensorimotor, and visual) resting state networks and connectivity with the thalamus, in 20 healthy unsedated controls, 8 unsedated patients with DOC, and 8 patients with DOC sedated with propofol. The DOC groups were matched for age at onset, etiology, time spent in DOC, diagnosis, standardized behavioral assessment scores, movement intensities, and pattern of structural brain injury (as assessed with T1-based voxel-based morphometry). RESULTS: DOC were associated with severely impaired resting state network connectivity in all but the visual network. Thalamic connectivity to higher-order network regions was also reduced. Propofol administration to patients was associated with minor further decreases in thalamic and insular connectivity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that connectivity decreases associated with propofol sedation, involving the thalamus and insula, are relatively small compared with those already caused by DOC-associated structural brain injury. Nonetheless, given the known importance of the thalamus in brain arousal, its disruption could well reflect the diminished movement obtained in these patients. However, more research is needed on this topic to fully address the research question.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".