Comparison of standing stability with different doses in epidural fentanyl among post-cesarean delivery women: a prospective trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study purpose was to determine the safety and efficacy of different doses of epidural fentanyl plus local anesthetics on ambulation for patients who had elective cesarean delivery. A prospective study at a single community hospital used posturography to compute Sway area for assessment of standing stability [ISRCTN14517337]. Continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine containing either 2.5 mcg.mL-1 (Group 1, n = 8) or 5 mcg.mL-1 fentanyl (Group 2, n = 8) was randomly assigned to an individual and started at a rate of 5 mL.h-1 postoperatively and continued for 48 hours after cesarean delivery in addition to standing acetaminophen and ibuprofen. Posturography measured with SYMPACK™ was used to compute Sway area for investigation of standing stability. The unpaired t-test was used to compare continuous variables between groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess differences of Sway area measured repeatedly within groups. Participants’ demographics, pain status, and leg motor function one day after cesarean delivery were not different between groups. Sway area in Group 1 was not different across three repeated measurements. Sway area of Group 2 on postoperative day 1, with epidural analgesia, was significantly higher than at the baseline (4.1 ± 2.8 vs. 3.1 ± 1.1 cm2, p < 0.05). Because both low and high concentrations of epidural fentanyl allowed participants to ambulate with the same pain effect, the lower concentration of continuous epidural fentanyl (2.5 mcg.mL-1 at 5 mL.h-1) is warranted to avoid potential adverse events during ambulation after cesarean delivery.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".