Depth of Anesthesia and Nociception Monitoring: Current State and Vision For 2050
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anesthesia objectives have evolved into combining hypnosis, amnesia, analgesia, paralysis, and suppression of the sympathetic autonomic nervous system. Technological improvements have led to new monitoring strategies, aimed at translating a qualitative physiological state into quantitative metrics, but the optimal strategies for depth of anesthesia (DoA) and analgesia monitoring continue to stimulate debate. Historically, DoA monitoring used patient's movement as a surrogate of awareness. Pharmacokinetic models and metrics, including minimum alveolar concentration for inhaled anesthetics and target-controlled infusion models for intravenous anesthesia, provided further insights to clinicians, but electroencephalography and its derivatives (processed EEG; pEEG) offer the potential for personalization of anesthesia care. Current studies appear to affirm that pEEG monitoring decreases the quantity of anesthetics administered, diminishes postanesthesia care unit duration, and may reduce the occurrence of postoperative delirium (notwithstanding the difficulties of defining this condition). Major trials are underway to further elucidate the impact on postoperative cognitive dysfunction. In this manuscript, we discuss the Bispectral (BIS) index, Narcotrend monitor, Patient State Index, entropy-based monitoring, and Neurosense monitor, as well as middle latency evoked auditory potential, before exploring how these technologies could evolve in the upcoming years. In contrast to developments in pEEG monitors, nociception monitors remain by comparison underdeveloped and underutilized. Just as with anesthetic agents, excessive analgesia can lead to harmful side effects, whereas inadequate analgesia is associated with increased stress response, poorer hemodynamic conditions and coagulation, metabolic, and immune system dysregulation. Broadly, 3 distinct monitoring strategies have emerged: motor reflex, central nervous system, and autonomic nervous system monitoring. Generally, nociceptive monitors outperform basic clinical vital sign monitoring in reducing perioperative opioid use. This manuscript describes pupillometry, surgical pleth index, analgesia nociception index, and nociception level index, and suggest how future developments could impact their use. The final section of this review explores the profound implications of future monitoring technologies on anesthesiology practice and envisages 3 transformative scenarios: helping in creation of an optimal analgesic drug, the advent of bidirectional neuron-microelectronic interfaces, and the synergistic combination of hypnosis and virtual reality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".