Effects of total intravenous anesthesia with etomidate and propofol on postoperative cognitive dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is observed in elderly patients underwent intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with endotracheal intubation. Modulation of anesthetics compatibility may reduce the severity of POCD. Elderly patients scheduled for TIVA with endotracheal intubation were randomly divided into the control group (1.00?2.00 mg/kg propofol) and the etomidate and propofol combination group (1.00?2.00 mg/kg propofol and 0.30 mg/kg etomidate). Serum cortisol, S100?, and neuron-specific enolase (NSE), interleukin (IL)-6, and IL-10 were monitored during or after the operation. Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were utilized to assess the severity of POCD. 63 elderly patients in the etomidate and propofol combination group and 60 patients in the control group were enrolled, and there was no significant difference in gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, surgical specialty, intraoperative blood loss, and operation time between the two groups. Significantly increased serum cortisol, S100?, NSE, IL-6, and reduced MMSE and MoCA scores were detected in the control group at different time points after the operation (0-72 h post operation) when compared to those before the operation. Similar trends for these observed factors were found in the etomidate and propofol combination group. In addition, the etomidate and propofol combination group showed better effects in reducing the serum levels of cortisol, S100?, NSE, IL-6, and increasing the MMSE and MoCA scores when compared to the control group. The present study demonstrates that the combination of propofol with etomidate could alleviate POCD in elderly patients underwent TIVA with endotracheal intubation anesthesia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".