High volatile anaesthetic conservation with a digital in‐line vaporizer and a reflector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background A volatile anaesthetic (VA) reflector can reduce VA consumption (VAC) at the cost of fine control of its delivery and CO 2 accumulation. A digital in‐line vaporizer and a second CO 2 absorber circumvent both of these limitations. We hypothesized that the combination of a VA reflector with an in‐line vaporizer would yield substantial VA conservation, independent of fresh gas flow (FGF) in a circle circuit, and provide fine control of inspired VA concentrations. Method Prospective observational study on six Yorkshire pigs. A secondary anaesthetic circuit consisting of a Y‐piece with 2 one‐way valves, an in‐line vaporizer and a CO 2 absorber in the inspiratory limb was connected to the patient's side of the VA reflector. The other side was connected to the Y‐piece of a circle anaesthetic circuit. In six pigs, an inspired concentration of sevoflurane of 2.5% was maintained by the in‐line vaporizer. We measured VAC at FGF of 1, 4 and 10 l/min. Results With the secondary circuit, VAC was 55% less than with the circle system alone at FGF 1 l/min, and independent of FGF over the range of 1–10 l/min. Insertion of a CO 2 absorber in the secondary circuit reduced P et CO 2 by 1.3–2.0 kpa (10–15 mmHg). Conclusion A secondary circuit with reflector and in‐line vaporizer provides highly efficient anaesthetic delivery, independent of FGF. A second CO 2 absorber was necessary to scavenge the CO 2 reflected by the anaesthetic reflector. This secondary circuit may turn any open circuit ventilator into an anaesthetic delivery unit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".