Science, Medicine, and the Anesthesiologist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies suggest an increased likelihood of intraoperative awareness in female patients.However, most investigations were not designed to identify sex differences in anesthetic sensitivity.Using experiments in mice and data from the ReCCognition trial (NCT01911195), this study tested whether sexually dimorphic responses to general anesthesia exist, and if so, how they could be mechanistically explained.The righting reflex was used to generate induction and emergence dose-response curves using four volatile anesthetics in male and female mice.Female mice took longer to become anesthetized and emerged faster.Female mice were more likely to exhibit righting reflex at equal steady-state anesthetic concentration measured in the brain.These experimental findings could be confirmed by data collected in the ReCCognition trial showing faster emergence from anesthesia in female volunteers corroborated by psychomotor vigilance tests.Lower concentrations of testosterone contributed to resistance to general anesthesia.Experiments in castrated male mice showed that anesthetic sensitivity was increased by application of testosterone acting on specific hypothalamic neurons, which are involved in the induction of natural sleep.Interestingly, conventional electroencephalogram used to measure brain activity during anesthesia did not detect sex-based differences.This suggests that standard clinical practice might not fully capture depth of anesthesia in humans.(Article Selection: Michael Zaugg, M.D., M.B.A. Image: Adobe Stock.)Take home message: The female brain in mice and humans is more resistant to the hypnotic effects of volatile anesthetics, which may explain the higher incidence of awareness under anesthesia in females.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.019 |
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".