MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254751208 · doi:10.1097/aco.0b013e328332c9b4

Automated anesthesia

2009· review· en· W4254751208 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas M. Hemmerling

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWorkloadHuman multitaskingAnestheticAnesthesiaTriageMedical emergencyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Anesthesiologists are overloaded with information and multitasking necessities in an extremely complex work environment. The purpose of this review is to present recent developments toward automated anesthesia and present future technologies for everyday clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Decision support systems integrate different parameters, clinical scenarios and assessments by (non)-trained personnel into algorithms, which lead to diagnostic suggestions, triage evaluations or treatment options. Target-controlled anesthesia infusion systems reduce the anesthesiologist's workload; target-controlled analgesia systems have the potential to provide more stable hemodynamic control. Closed-loop delivery of anesthesia is feasible and provides anesthetic control as good as or better than human delivery. Teleanesthesia offers the possibility of distant preoperative assessment of the patient's fitness for anesthesia, aid of trained personnel to perform anesthetic tasks and the control of anesthesia delivery in a distant location. SUMMARY: Decision support systems help to make reliable and standardized decisions in complex environments. Target-controlled infusion systems reduce the anesthetic workload. Closed-loop systems will automate anesthesia care in the near future. Teleanesthesia offers the opportunity to provide safe anesthetic care whenever trained personnel are not available or need support.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.008

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations47
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in AnaesthesiologySame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207