Responsiveness variability during anaesthesia relates to inherent differences in brain structure and function of the frontoparietal networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anaesthesia combined with functional neuroimaging provides a powerful approach for understanding the brain mechanisms of consciousness. Although propofol is used ubiquitously in clinical interventions that reversibly suppress consciousness, it shows large inter-individual variability, and the brain bases of this variability remain poorly understood. We asked whether three networks key to conscious cognition-the dorsal attention (DAN), executive control (ECN), and default mode (DMN)-underlie responsiveness variability under anaesthesia. Healthy participants (N = 17) were moderately anaesthetized during narrative understanding and resting-state conditions inside the Magnetic Resonance Imaging scanner. A target detection task measured behavioural responsiveness. An independent behavioural study (N = 25) qualified the attention demands of narrative understanding. Then, 30% of participants were unaffected in their response times, thus thwarting a key aim of anaesthesia-the suppression of behavioural responsiveness. Individuals with stronger functional connectivity within the DAN and ECN, between them, and to the DMN, and with larger grey matter volume in frontal regions were more resilient to anaesthesia. For the first time, we show that responsiveness variability during propofol anaesthesia relates to inherent differences in brain structure and function of the frontoparietal networks, which can be predicted prior to sedation. Results highlight novel markers for improving awareness monitoring during clinical anaesthesia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".