Knowledge Gaps in the Perioperative Management of Adults With Narcolepsy: A Call for Further Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing awareness that sleep disorders may be associated with increased perioperative risk. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine created the Narcolepsy Perioperative Task Force: (1) to investigate the current state of knowledge of the perioperative risk for patients with narcolepsy, (2) to determine the viability of developing perioperative guidelines for the management of patients with narcolepsy, and (3) to delineate future research goals and clinically relevant outcomes. The Narcolepsy Perioperative Task Force established that there is evidence for increased perioperative risk in patients with narcolepsy; however, this evidence is sparse and based on case reviews, case series, and retrospective reviews. Mechanistically, there are a number of potential mechanisms by which patients with narcolepsy could be at increased risk for perioperative complications. These include aggravation of the disease itself, dysautonomia, narcolepsy-related medications, anesthesia interactions, and withdrawal of narcolepsy-related medications. At this time, there is inadequate research to develop an expert consensus or guidelines for the perioperative management of patients with narcolepsy. The paucity of available literature highlights the critical need to determine if patients with narcolepsy are at an increased perioperative risk and to establish appropriate research protocols and clearly delineated patient-centered outcomes. There is a real need for collaborative research among sleep medicine specialists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, and perioperative providers. This future research will become the foundation for the development of guidelines, or at a minimum, a better understanding how to optimize the perioperative care of patients with narcolepsy.
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 | 0.027 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".