MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strategies for Prevention of Spinal-associated Hypotension During Cesarean Delivery: Are We Paying Attention?

2018· article· en· W2888223596 on OpenAlexaff
Vishal Uppal, Dolores M. McKeen

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetric Anesthesia Digest · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaBupivacaineFentanylAdverse effectCesarean deliverySpinal anesthesiaComplicationRandomized controlled trialSurgeryPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

( Can J Anaesth 2017;64:991–996) Spinal anesthesia (SA)-induced hypotension is a common complication during cesarean delivery (CD) and can cause a wide range of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes if untreated. Moore et al’s clinical trial aimed at assessing the median seated time to prevent hypotension in 50% of parturients undergoing elective CD after SA using an up-down sequential methodology. The participants were randomized to receive either 11.25 or 15 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine along with fentanyl 15 µg and morphine 150 µg. It was noted that the median seated time in the 11.25 mg bupivacaine group was a little more than 2 minutes whereas in the 15 mg bupivacaine group the median seated time was approximately 8 minutes, suggesting that extended seated time after SA could prevent hypotension in CD. Further studies elucidating the association of extended seated time and hypotension are essential to design effective prevention strategies for hypotension in CD. The current study was only powered to detect the intervention that prevented hypotension in 50% of patients, which questions its clinical relevance. Disadvantages of the prolonged seated strategy include a delay in surgical start time, reduced operating room efficiency, and shorter duration of anesthesia.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetric Anesthesia DigestSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207