Effects of different ratios of medicine dosage for propofol and sevoflurane on postoperative cognitive function in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effects of different ratios of medicine dosage for propofol and sevoflurane on postoperative cognitive function in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment. Methods Ninety-six patients of both sexes, aged 65-75 yr, weighing 60-80 kg, of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status Ⅰ or Ⅱ, scheduled for elective lower limb fracture operation under general anesthesia, with mild cognitive impairment before surgery, were assigned into 4 groups (n=24 each) using a random number table: propofol group (group P), sevoflurane group (group S) and different ratios of medicine dosage for propofol and sevoflurane groups (group PS1 and group PS2). Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were used to evaluate the cognitive function of patients at 1 day before operation (T0) and 7 days after operation (T1). Venous blood samples were collected at T0 and T1 for determination of the concentrations of plasma apolipoprotein J (ApoJ) and soluble CD14 (sCD14) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results Compared with group S, MMSE and MoCA scores were significantly increased and plasma concentrations of ApoJ and sCD14 were decreased at T1, and the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction was decreased in P, PS1 and PS2 groups (P 0.05). Conclusion Combination of propofol 1.2 μg/ml given by target-controlled infusion and 0.7-1.2% sevoflurane inhalation for maintenance of anesthesia does not aggravate the postoperative cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment. Key words: Propofol; Anesthetics, inhalation; Cognition disorders; Postoperative complications; Aged
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".