MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400241232 · doi:10.14740/jocmr5175

The Use of Remimazolam During Awake Craniotomy for Seizure Foci Resection in Adolescents: A Case Series

2024· article· en· W4400241232 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ashley Smith, Sidhant Kalsotra, Joseph Tobias

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNationwide Children's Hospital
KeywordsMedicineAwake craniotomyCraniotomyResectionSeries (stratigraphy)AnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine with sedative, anxiolytic, and amnestic properties similar to midazolam. Metabolism by tissue esterases results in a short clinical half-life of 5 - 10 min and a limited context sensitive half-life. We present initial retrospective clinical experience with the use of remimazolam as an intraoperative adjunct to sedation during awake craniotomy in a cohort of three adolescent patients. A remimazolam infusion was added to a combination of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil to deepen the level of sedation during surgical incision, craniotomy, duraplasty, and surgical dissection for exposure of the seizure foci. The remimazolam infusion was discontinued 30 min prior to the planned awake assessments and electrophysiology testing. The patients emerged calmly and were able to follow commands for intraoperative testing. Our anecdotal experience supports the efficacy of remimazolam for awake craniotomy and tumor resection using a standard asleep-awake-asleep technique. We noted adequate sedation, maintenance of spontaneous respiration, rapid awakening, and no limitations to intraoperative neuromonitoring or awake assessment in our three patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.333
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207