Cerebrovascular assessment of patients undergoing shoulder surgery in beach chair position using a multiparameter transcranial Doppler approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the beach-chair position (BCP) is widely used during shoulder surgery, it has been reported to associate with a reduction in cerebral blood flow, oxygenation, and risk of brain ischaemia. We assessed cerebral haemodynamics using a multiparameter transcranial Doppler-derived approach in patients undergoing shoulder surgery. 23 anaesthetised patients (propofol (2 mg/kg)) without history of neurologic pathology undergoing elective shoulder surgery were included. Arterial blood pressure (ABP, monitored with a finger-cuff plethysmograph calibrated at the auditory meatus level) and cerebral blood flow velocity (FV, monitored in the middle cerebral artery) were recorded in supine and in BCP. All subjects underwent interscalene block ipsilateral to the side of FV measurement. We evaluated non-invasive intracranial pressure (nICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure (nCPP) calculated with a black-box mathematical model; critical closing pressure (CrCP); diastolic closing margin (DCM-pressure reserve available to avoid diastolic flow cessation); cerebral autoregulation index (Mxa); pulsatility index (PI). Significant changes occured for DCM [mean decrease of 6.43 mm Hg (p = 0.01)] and PI [mean increase of 0.11 (p = 0.05)]. ABP, FV, nICP, nCPP and CrCP showed a decreasing trend. Cerebral autoregulation was dysfunctional (Mxa > 0.3) and PI deviated from normal ranges (PI > 0.8) in both phases. ABP and nCPP values were low (< 60 mm Hg) in both phases. Changes between phases did not result in CrCP reaching diastolic ABP, therefore DCM did not reach critical values (≤ 0 mm Hg). BCP resulted in significant cerebral haemodynamic changes. If left untreated, reduction in cerebral blood flow may result in brain ischaemia and post-operative neurologic deficit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".