Potential increased propofol sensitivity in cognitively impaired elderly: a controlled, double-blind study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cognitive impairment in the elderly may lead to potential increased sensitivity to anesthetic agents targeting receptors associated with cognition. This study aimed to explore the effect of cognitive status on propofol consumption during surgery in elderly patients. Methods Sixty elderly patients scheduled for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were allocated to either a cognitively normal [CogN, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score ≥26] or cognitively impaired (CogI, MoCA <26) group. Propofol was administered via target-controlled infusion to maintain a bispectral index (BIS) between 55–65 during surgery. Propofol consumption was recorded at three time points: T1 (abolished eyelash reflex), T2 (BIS = 50), T3 (extubation). BIS values at eyelash reflex abolition were also recorded. Postoperative MoCA, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, and remifentanil/sufentanil consumption were assessed. Results BIS values before induction were similar between CogN and CogI groups. However, at eyelash reflex abolition, BIS was significantly higher in CogI than CogN (mean ± SD: 65.3 ± 7.2 vs. 61.1 ± 6.8, p = 0.031). Propofol requirement to reach BIS 50 was lower in CogI vs. CogN (1.24 ± 0.19 mg/kg vs. 1.46 ± 0.12 mg/kg, p = 0.003). Postoperative MoCA, VAS scores, and remifentanil/sufentanil consumption did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusion Compared to cognitively intact elderly, those with cognitive impairment exhibited higher BIS at eyelash reflex abolition and required lower propofol doses to achieve the same BIS level, suggesting increased propofol sensitivity. Cognitive status may impact anesthetic medication requirements in the elderly.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".