Effects of duration of surgery flash-induced visual evoked potentials in patients undergoing spinal surgery in prone position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the effects of duration of surgery on flash-induced visual evoked potentials (VEP) in patients undergoing spinal surgery in prone position.Methods Eighty-two ASA Ⅰ or Ⅱ patients of both sexes aged 20-76 yr weighing 43-96 kg undergoing spinal surgery in prone position were divided into 3 groups according to the duration of surgery:group S≤2 h ( n =34) ; group M 2-4 h ( n =38) and group L≥4 h ( n =10).VEP was monitored using protektor VEP monitoring device (Xltek Co.,Canada).The latency,amplitude and recovery time of wave P100 were recorded before and 10 min after induction of anesthesia and at the end of surgery.Results Compared with group S,the amplitude of wave P1000 was significantly decreased at the end of surgery in group M,the lantency of wave P100 was significantly prolonged,while the amplitude of wave P100 was decreased at the end of surgery in group L ( P ＜ 0.05).Compared with group M,the lantency of wave P100 was significantly prolonged,while the amplitude of wave P100 was decreased at the end of surgery in group L ( P ＜ 0.05).Compared with groups S and M,the recovery time of wave P100 was significantly prolonged in group L ( P ＜0.05).There was no significant difference in the recovery time of wave P100 between groups S and M ( P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion Duration of surgery (≥4 h) can affect flash-induced VEP,the longer the duration,the stronger the effects. Key words: Time; Surgical procedures,operative, Evoked potentials, visual; Spine
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".