42nd International Symposium on Intensive Care & Emergency Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Spine surgery patients are very prone to development of postoperative pulmonary complications.We aimed to compare the impact of different intraoperative fractional inspiratory concentration of oxygen on postoperative pulmonary outcomes including oxygenation index and lactate values after thoracolumbar spine instrumentation.Methods: Total 75 American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II adult patients aged 18-60 years who were scheduled to undergo thoracolumbar spine instrumentation were randomly allocated into group A: (conservative oxygen) FiO 2 = 0.30 (30% oxygen with air) and group B: (Liberal Oxygen) FiO 2 = 0.80 (80% oxygen with air).We aimed to compare the changes in PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio, lactate values, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, PONV and SSI at the different study time intervals.Results: At the end of surgery after extubation, the mean (SD) of PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio in 0.3 FiO 2 and 0.8 FiO 2 groups were 424.69 (53.69) and 315.57(48.62) respectively.The values of lactate in both the groups increased at the end of surgery from a mean of 0.93 pg/ml in both the groups preoperatively to 1.18 pg/ml and 1.74 pg/ml in 0.3 and 0.8 FiO 2 groups postoperatively respectively.No significant changes in the levels of interleukin 6 and CRP were found in our study when compared between baseline values and the values after intervention.Conclusions: This study demonstrated the superior efficacy of conservative oxygen inspiratory fraction (0.3% FiO 2 ) as compared to liberal FiO 2 (0.8% FiO 2 ), in terms of better PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio and low lactate values in patients undergoing surgery for thoraco-lumbar spine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.027 |
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".