MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The nociception level index (NOL) response to intubation and incision in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) with and without thoracic epidural analgesia. A pilot study.

2018· preprint· en· W2809079506 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

VenueF1000Research · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaFentanylIntubationNociceptionCardiothoracic surgerySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Background:</ns7:bold> The PMD100™ (Medasense Biometrics Ltd., Ramat Yishai, Israel) is a novel non-invasive nociception monitor that integrates physiological parameters to compute a real-time nociception level index (NOL) in the anesthetized patients. Thoracic epidural analgesia provides effective analgesia and improves surgical outcomes. Side effects include sympathectomy, hypotension, changes in skin temperature and a decreased cardiac accelerator fiber tone. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate changes in NOL values after incision in patients with and without epidural analgesia. </ns7:p> <ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Methods:</ns7:bold> Half of the patients scheduled for Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) received a thoracic epidural catheter, placed and tested 2h before surgery and activated prior to incision. The other half of the patients received i.v. fentanyl (1 mcg/kg) five minutes before incision. Anesthesia and analgesia were maintained in a standardized manner. NOL and heart rate (HR) were compared before and after the nociceptive stimuli intubation and skin incision. </ns7:p> <ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Results:</ns7:bold> NOL significantly increased in all patients after intubation by 10.2 points (CI: 4.5-16.0; p=0.002) as well as HR by 9 beats per minute after intubation in all patients (CI: 3.3-15.6; p=0.01). After incision, in patients without epidural analgesia the NOL increased by 13.9 points (CI: 7.4-20.3; p=0.0001), compared to 5.4 points (CI: -6.3-17.1; p=0.29) in patients with epidural analgesia. HR did not significantly vary after incision in both groups. The area under the curve of delta NOL and delta HR variations after incision were significantly different (p&lt;0.05) between groups and delta NOL variations were significantly different from baseline values but not the delta HR variations. </ns7:p> <ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Conclusions:</ns7:bold> This pilot study suggests that the PMD100™ Monitor may be a useful tool to evaluate the efficacy of an intraoperative thoracic epidural analgesia. </ns7:p> <ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Clinical Trial Registry Number</ns7:bold> : ClinicalTrials.gov record ID: NCT01978379 registered 10/25/2014. </ns7:p>

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.281 · 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