MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903921929 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000003954

Narcolepsy, Anesthesia, and Sedation: A Survey of the Perioperative Experience of Patients With Narcolepsy

2018· article· en· W2903921929 on OpenAlexaff
Shelley Hershner, Rahul Kakkar, Frances Chung, Mandeep Singh, Jean Wong, Dennis Auckley

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarcolepsyMedicinePerioperativeOdds ratioAnesthesiaCataplexySedationOddsLogistic regressionPediatricsInternal medicinePsychiatryNeurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with narcolepsy may be at increased perioperative risk due to the interactions among anesthesia, narcolepsy, and narcolepsy medications. This study sought to determine the perioperative experience of narcoleptic patients undergoing anesthesia or sedation, the frequency of perioperative counseling, and self-reported surgical complications. METHODS: A 22-question survey was developed by expert consensus and distributed by the Narcolepsy Network. Recruitment was via the Narcolepsy Network's list-serve and a Facebook link to the survey. One thousand and twenty respondents reported a diagnosis of narcolepsy and 1 or more procedures under anesthesia or sedation. Descriptive, comparative statistics and logistic regression were utilized. RESULTS: Respondents were mostly women (79.5%) and Caucasian (84.9%), with a mean age of 45 ± 16 years. Most respondents did not receive counseling regarding the possibility of increased sleepiness (70%), cataplexy (90%), or drowsy driving (59%) postanesthesia. More than half of respondents reported adverse events (medication withdrawal symptoms, inadequate pain relief, increased cataplexy). Subjects with cataplexy more frequently reported surgical complications (70% vs 31%; P = .03) and medication withdrawal symptoms (stimulant medications: odds ratio, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.9, 3.06]; P > .001 and antidepressant medications: odds ratio, 6.5 [95% CI, 2.1-19.5]; P = .001). Of the total sample, 18% indicated surgical complications. Undergoing 5 or more separate surgeries or procedures was associated with a 2-fold increase in self-reported complications (odds ratio, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3-3.4]; P = .001), difficulty waking (odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.45-3.06]; P = .001), and inadequate pain relief (odds ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.01-3.13]; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Most narcoleptic patients report not receiving counseling regarding potential worsening of narcolepsy symptoms postanesthesia or an increased risk of drowsy driving. Enhanced education of perioperative providers about potential narcolepsy-related issues is essential. Respondents frequently self-report adverse events in the perioperative period. Future studies should clarify the perioperative risk associated with narcolepsy to optimize the care and safety of narcoleptic patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207