Early cognitive function changes after dexmedetomidine added to propofol-based sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Propofol usually used for sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, result in short-term, reversible decline in cognitive function. This prospective cohort trial aimed to propofol plus dexmedetomidine can improve cognitive function for elective outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Patients were randomized allocation into group C (groupC30 and groupC60), and group D. The group D was The group D was a continuous intravenous pumping of dexmedetomidine at a dose of 0.3μg/kg within 10min before anaesthesia; the group C were given an equal volume of normal saline instead. Patients underwent a MoCA test before sedation and at discharge. Results: The MoCA scores were similar at baseline in each group. Compared to baseline before gastrointestinal endoscopy, the MoCA scores were decreased each group ( group C30: p<0.001; group C60: p<0.001; group D: p=0.002). Compared to group C30, the MoCA scores were better in group C60 (p=0.03) and group D (p<0.001), and those in group D were higher than those in group C60 (p<0.001). Incidence of cognitive impairment in group C30 is 56.6% which ranks the highest among the three groups, and those in group D is 7.8% which ranks the lowest among the three groups, the difference is significant statistically (p<0.001). The MoCA scores were similar between the genders in each group (p>0.05). Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine added to sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy can improve early cognitive function and reduce incidence of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".