Pupillary response to nitrous oxide administration in cataract surgery under general anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite recent innovations in cataract surgery, pupillary diameter is one of the most important affecting factors in outcome of this surgery. As cataract surgery is performed ideally when the pupil is sufficiently dilated, anesthesia may contribute significantly in success or failure of this operation. This study was performed to evaluate the effect of nitrous oxide on pupillary diameter in cataract surgery under general anesthesia. METHODS: Forty patients with cataract, scheduled for operation under general anesthesia, were randomly allocated into two groups. After induction of anesthesia, anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane and nitrous oxide - oxygen (60%-40%) in group 1 versus oxygen 100% in group 2. Pupillary diameter, heart rate and blood pressure were monitored and recorded, before induction of anesthesia, just before tracheal intubation, and one and 5 min after laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. RESULTS: Statistical analysis of the results using Mann-Whitney test showed no significant difference in pupillary diameter between two the groups. CONCLUSION: According to the results of this study, nitrous oxide has no effect on pupillary diameter of patients under general anesthesia, so it could be safety used, in this regard, in ophthalmic operations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".