MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193648283 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000503

Effects of Sedatives on Sleep Architecture Measured With Odds Ratio Product in Critically Ill Patients

2021· article· en· W3193648283 on OpenAlexaff
Dimitris Georgopoulos, Εumorfia Kondili, Christina Alexopoulou, Magdy Younes

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdds ratioMedicineOddsAnesthesiaSedationDexmedetomidineInternal medicineLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of sleep quality in critically ill patients is difficult using conventional scoring criteria. The aim of this study was to examine sleep in critically ill patients with and without light sedation using the odds ratio product, a validated continuous metric of sleep depth (0 = deep sleep; 2.5 = full wakefulness) that does not rely on the features needed for conventional staging. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTINGS: A 16-bed medical-surgical ICU. PATIENTS: Twenty-three mechanically ventilated patients who had previously undergone two nocturnal sleep studies, one without and one with sedation (propofol, n = 12; dexmedetomidine, n = 11). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sleep architecture was evaluated with odds ratio product analysis by the distribution of 30-second epochs with different odds ratio product values. Electroencephalogram spectral patterns and frequency of wake intrusions (3-s odds ratio product > 1.75) were measured at different odds ratio product levels. Thirty-seven normal sleepers were used as controls. Compared with normal sleepers, unsedated critically ill patients spent little time in stable sleep (percent odds ratio product < 1.0: 31% vs 63%; p < 0.001), whereas most of the time were either in stage wake (odds ratio product > 1.75) or in a transitional state (odds ratio product 1.0–1.75), characterized by frequent wake intrusions. Propofol and dexmedetomidine had comparable effects on sleep. Sedation resulted in significant shift in odds ratio product distribution toward normal; percent odds ratio product less than 1.0 increased by 54% (p = 0.006), and percent odds ratio product greater than 1.75 decreased by 48% (p = 0.013). In six patients (26%), sedation failed to improve sleep. CONCLUSIONS: In stable critically ill unsedated patients, sleep quality is poor with frequent wake intrusions and little stable sleep. Light sedation with propofol or dexmedetomidine resulted in a shift in sleep architecture toward normal in most, but not all, patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ExplorationsSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207