Validation of the PMD100 and its NOL Index to detect nociception at different infusion regimen of remifentanil in patients under general anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The NOL index is based on multiparametric analysis of heart rate (HR), skin conductance, wave plethysmography, and their time derivative. The aim of this study was to evaluate the NOL to detect standardized nociceptive stimuli with various remifentanil dosages under general anesthesia. METHODS: A prospective, observational study at a single center (NCT02602379) included 40 ASA I to III patients undergoing laparotomy under remifentanil-desflurane anesthesia with epidural analgesia. A tetanic stimulation was applied (forearm) at remifentanil intravenous (IV) infusion of 0.005, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.15 µg/kg/min. NOL and its variations were compared with other parameters namely heart rate, mean arterial pressure, Bispectral Index, and Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to assess the response to both intubation and standardized stimulus under remifentanil infusion of 0.005 µg/kg/min. RESULTS: The post-stimulation NOL values at remifentanil doses of 0.005, 0.05, 0.1 and 0.15 µg/kg/min (39 [23-55], 15 [7-30], 8 [4-14] and 8.5 [4-15]) were significantly higher than pre-stimulation counterparts (P<0.0001). For all other parameters, there was also significant difference between pre- and post-stimulation values at all remifentanil dosages (P<0.0001). Area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the NOL during standardized stimulation was larger than for all other parameters at the exception of ANI (P=0.94). The AUC of NOL for nociception during tracheal intubation was greater (0.93 vs. 0.84 and 0.64 for ANI and HR, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: NOL monitoring is a promising index to assess the level of nociception in patients under general 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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".