Is near infrared spectroscopy valid for the detection of procedural pain in postoperative cardiac surgery intensive care unit adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the validity of the regional cerebral oxygenation using the near infrared spectroscopy technique for pain assessment in postoperative cardiac surgery adults in the intensive care unit. The near infrared spectroscopy for the assessment of pain has been studied in pediatric population, but its use in adult population especially in the critically ill is new. A total of 125 cardiac surgery intensive care unit patients from a Canadian university-affiliated hospital participated in this prospective repeated-measures study. Six assessments were completed at rest before, during, and 15 min after two procedures: (1) non-nociceptive (blood pressure measurement using cuff inflation) and (2) nociceptive (mediastinal tube removal). Regional cerebral oxygenation (%) was measured using the INVOS 5100 device (Somanetics, Troy, MI, USA). The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool was employed to assess behavioral responses to pain. Self-reports of pain intensity and unpleasantness using 0–10 scales were also obtained. Participants were mostly males (89%) and averaged 65 of age. Regional cerebral oxygenation showed significant mild bilateral decreases (<1%; p<0.01) while higher mean Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores, pain intensity, and unpleasantness self-reports were obtained during mediastinal tube removal ( p < 0.001). Only the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool score was mildly correlated to the right side regional cerebral oxygenation ( r −0.23; p < 0.01). Changes in regional cerebral oxygenation were mild and in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, the findings do not support the clinical use of the INVOS 5100 (Somanetics, Troy, MI, USA) and its regional cerebral oxygenation hemodynamic parameter for the assessment of pain in the cardiac surgery critically ill patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".