The efficacy of nalmefene on anesthetic recovery of patients: a study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: So far, the recovery quality after general anesthesia is still unsatisfied. Nalmefene is a drug to treat opioid overdose and reverse opioid actions. We aim to investigate the efficacy of nalmefene on optimizing the recovery quality of patients after general anesthesia. METHODS: It is a prospective, placebo-controlled, two-arm parallel groups, multicentre, double-blind, randomized (PPPMDR) clinical trial. The participants (n = 520) will be randomly assigned into two groups. Each patient will receive either: a single dose of nalmefene 0.25 µg/kg in the intervention group, or the same volume of 0.9% NaCl solution in the control group at the end of the surgery. The primary outcome will be the time interval between the end of anaesthesia and recovery endpoints achieved (Aldrete recovery score ≥ 9) in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). The other variables are the time interval from the end of operation to extubation; Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score at extubation; the time at Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA) orientation score ≥ 5; visual analog scale (VAS) score and adverse effects including postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and pruritus in PACU and 24 h postoperatively. ANALYSIS: This trial aims to study whether small dose of nalmefene can shorten the time from the end of surgery to Aldrete score ≥ 9 and improve opioid-induced side effects.This trial focuses on providing the reliable clinical evidence for satisfactory quality of recovery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This clinical trial has been approved and supported by the ethics committee of the Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, School of Medicine (KY2020-150); Shanghai Tongren Hospital (2021-030-01);The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University (2021-032); and The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University(2021-KY-0495-003). Analysis of the study results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04713358, Registered on September 23, 2021.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.039 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.007 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".