MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613352155 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001870

Differences in Blood Pressure in Infants After General Anesthesia Compared to Awake Regional Anesthesia (GAS Study—A Prospective Randomized Trial)

2017· article· en· W2613352155 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical CampusEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentState Government of VictoriaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMurdoch Children's Research InstituteChildren's Hospital ColoradoACT GovernmentMedical Research CouncilChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research InstituteSeattle Children's Research InstituteUniversitair Medisch Centrum GroningenDartmouth CollegePrincess Margaret Hospital FoundationUniversity of WashingtonChildren's Hospital of PhiladelphiaVanderbilt University Medical CenterAustralian and New Zealand College of AnaesthetistsVanderbilt University
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaBlood pressureSevofluraneConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectProspective cohort studyMean arterial pressureSurgeryHeart rateInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The General Anesthesia compared to Spinal anesthesia (GAS) study is a prospective randomized, controlled, multisite, trial designed to assess the influence of general anesthesia (GA) on neurodevelopment at 5 years of age. A secondary aim obtained from the blood pressure data of the GAS trial is to compare rates of intraoperative hypotension after anesthesia and to identify risk factors for intraoperative hypotension. METHODS: A total of 722 infants ≤60 weeks postmenstrual age undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy were randomized to either bupivacaine regional anesthesia (RA) or sevoflurane GA. Exclusion criteria included risk factors for adverse neurodevelopmental outcome and infants born at <26 weeks of gestation. Moderate hypotension was defined as mean arterial pressure measurement of <35 mm Hg. Any hypotension was defined as mean arterial pressure of <45 mm Hg. Epochs were defined as 5-minute measurement periods. The primary outcome was any measured hypotension <35 mm Hg from start of anesthesia to leaving the operating room. This analysis is reported primarily as intention to treat (ITT) and secondarily as per protocol. RESULTS: The relative risk of GA compared with RA predicting any measured hypotension of <35 mm Hg from the start of anesthesia to leaving the operating room was 2.8 (confidence interval [CI], 2.0-4.1; P < .001) by ITT analysis and 4.5 (CI, 2.7-7.4, P < .001) as per protocol analysis. In the GA group, 87% and 49%, and in the RA group, 41% and 16%, exhibited any or moderate hypotension by ITT, respectively. In multivariable modeling, group assignment (GA versus RA), weight at the time of surgery, and minimal intraoperative temperature were risk factors for hypotension. Interventions for hypotension occurred more commonly in the GA group compared with the RA group (relative risk, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4 by ITT). CONCLUSIONS: RA reduces the incidence of hypotension and the chance of intervention to treat it compared with sevoflurane anesthesia in young infants undergoing inguinal hernia repair.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.266 · 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