MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130955444 · doi:10.14740/jnr.v0i0.646

Apnea Test Safety in Brain Death: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Analysis

2021· article· en· W3130955444 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Talita Sansoni, Nicholas Nascimento, Gabriel Franco, Rui P. Moreno, Alexandre Guimarães de Almeida Barros, Venâncio Pereira Dantas Filho, Hélder Zambelli, Ana Paula Devite Cardoso Gasparotto, Luiz Antônio Sardinha, Antônio Luís Eiras Falcão

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineApneaAnesthesiaRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The apnea test, which is considered positive when no spontaneous breathing movements are observed following maximal hypercapnia (PaCO 2 > 55 mm Hg) respiratory center stimulation, was critically evaluated in this study by assessment of blood gas analyses performed during brain death protocols from 2010 to 2017, in the intensive care units of the Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP). Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis based on the intensive care unit and Transplant Organ Search Organization data banks. Blood gas analyses before (pre-first and -second apnea tests) as after (after-first and -second apnea tests) were assessed. Descriptive statistical analyses of the numerical variables (such as pH, PaO 2 , PaCO 2 , HCO 3, SatO 2 ) with mean values and standard deviation, medians, and quartiles were performed. The Student’s t -test was used for pairwise group comparisons. A P < 0.05 level was adopted for significance. Results: Eighty-seven protocols were evaluated. The mean apnea test duration was 11 min. All of the patients were under vasoactive drugs. Only five apnea tests were interrupted before the end at 10 min due to rapid desaturation (SatO 2 < 90%), with no invalidated apnea test. Mean and standard deviation of blood gas tests assessed before the first apnea test were: pH 7.35(± 0.10), PaO 2 252.15 mm Hg (± 114.11), PaCO 2 42.78 mm Hg (± 10.84); after the first apnea test: pH 7.11(± 0.08), PaO 2 208.39 mm Hg (± 112), PaCO 2 82.43 mm Hg (± 16.91); before the second test: pH 7.33 (± 0.09), PaO 2 253.56 mm Hg (± 105.36), PaCO 2 43.76 mm Hg (± 9.67); following the second apnea test: pH 7.11 (± 0.10), PaO 2 200.1 mm Hg (± 116.45), PaCO 2 84.98 mm Hg (± 20.21). The pH, PaO 2 , and PaCO 2 values before and after the first and second apnea tests have shown statistically significant differences (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The apnea test was safe, blood gas test results are similar to those described in the literature, severe hypoxemias were prevented by a quick reconnection to the mechanical ventilation; and marked hypercapnia and acidemia following the apnea test were found, but no test was invalidated. J Neurol Res. 2021;11(1-2):14-19 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr646

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology ResearchSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207