MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232049852 · doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e3182627d3b

In Reply

2012· article· en· W4232049852 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Heyer, Zirka H. Anastasian, Philip M. Meyers

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We would like to thank Dr. Williams for responding to our editorial,1which appeared in the February 2012 issue of ANESTHESIOLOGY.Dr. Williams makes the point that patients sedated for endovascular treatment of acute ischemia may have higher arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure levels than patients treated for the same problem but receiving a general anesthetic. There are two points to this argument. The first is that patients receiving general anesthesia have a lower arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure than patients sedated without a general anesthetic. The second is that vasodilation from retention of carbon dioxide in the sedated patients will dilate the cerebral vasculature and protect penumbral areas by that mechanism.First, with a general anesthetic the partial pressure of carbon dioxide can be regulated to whatever level is required. It is incorrect to assume that the patient will be hyperventilated and thereby have a lower carbon dioxide partial pressure than will be achieved without intubation, although that may be the case if the anesthesiologist hyperventilates the patient. Dr. Williams is also correct that sedation may cause the patient to hypoventilate and retain carbon dioxide.Second, it is assumed that ischemic cerebral regions dilate anyway. Cerebral blood flow is probably pressure dependent in the penumbra. The issue of where to keep the partial pressure of carbon dioxide has been discussed extensively in management of patients receiving carotid endarterectomy under general anesthesia.2–4What was found was that it was difficult to predict the effect of dilating or constricting the surrounding healthy tissue on the ischemic cerebral areas. If you increase the partial pressure of carbon dioxide, dilate the noninvolved cerebral areas, you may shunt blood to normal brain tissues away from ischemic areas, referred to as “countersteal.”2–4On the other hand, if you decrease the partial pressure of carbon dioxide, constricting the noninvolved cerebral areas, you may not increase blood flow to the ischemic areas because they are limited already by the thrombus, which occludes the lumen, and you may cause the noninvolved areas to become relatively ischemic.3,5We still think that the overwhelming evidence from stroke management and from this paper is for maintenance of systolic blood pressures more than 140 mmHg and less than 200 mmHg as the best strategy to provide cerebral perfusion to ischemic brain through whatever collaterals may be available. Davis et al. did not provide any data related to end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide.6

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0200.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.033

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207