The effect of bispectral index monitoring on cognitive performance following sedation for outpatient colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring can positively affect cognitive performance through decreasing the use of sedative agents. We aimed to evaluate the effect of BIS monitoring on early cognitive performance among patients undergoing sedation for colonoscopy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, controlled trial in a university hospital. METHODS: 100 patients were randomized into two groups. In the monitored group (n = 50), the depth of anesthesia was monitored using the BIS, and BIS scores were maintained between 60 and 80. In the usual care group (n = 50), BIS monitoring was not performed. To determine the patients' baseline cognitive performance levels, the mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Trieger dot test (TDT) and clock drawing test (CDT) were used. The patients' post-procedure cognitive performance levels were determined when they were classified as ready for discharge. RESULTS: The total volume (mg) of propofol used [median (range) IQR] in the sedation procedure was lower in the monitored group [100 (50-200) 100-140] than in the usual care group [150 (75-200) 100-200] (P < 0.001). The discharge scores [mean (SD)] using MMSE and CDT were higher in the monitored group [26 (3) and 3 (1), respectively] than in the usual care group [23 (3) and 2 (1), respectively] (P = 0.002 and P = 0.002, respectively). The discharge scores using TDT [mean (SD)] were lower in the monitored group [11 (7)] than in the usual care group [15 (11)] (P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: BIS monitoring among sedated patients was associated with lower propofol use and smaller decline in cognitive performance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12617000134325).
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".