Serum neurofilament light release levels as marker of neurotoxicity in general anesthesia versus hypnosis: A prospective non-randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Whether general anesthetics induce neurotoxicity is unclear. Objectives: We hypothesized that serum neurofilament light (NfL) release, a marker of neural injury, would not be different in patients receiving general anesthesia (GA) compared to hypnosis. Design: Prospective, non-randomized. Setting: Tertiary university hospital. Methods: Patients undergoing breast cancer or thyroid/parathyroid surgery were enrolled. Propofol and remifentanil were used for GA. For hypnosis, only low dose remifentanil was allowed. Main outcome measures: NfL was measured at baseline, at day 1 and at postoperative visit. At preoperative and postoperative visit, patients performed a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Primary outcome was absolute change in NfL at day 1 between groups. Results: Among 100 included patients, 51 were in GA and 49 in hypnosis group. There were 26/49 (53%) breast cancer patients in hypnosis group and 13/51 (26%) in GA arm, p = 0.005. Baseline NfL was higher in the hypnosis group (p = 0.050). We subtracted log-transformed baseline NfL from postoperative NfL to analyze normalized values as absolute change. The mean normalized value at day 1 (primary endpoint) was 0.02 (± 0.11) in the GA and 0.03 (± 0.20) in the hypnosis group; p = 0.979 [d = 0.16, 95% CI: -0.40 to 0.39]. In a linear mixed-effects model including variables that influenced baseline NfL (advanced age, higher creatinine values, breast cancer), mean difference (95 % CI) in absolute change of log NfL at day 1 between both groups was 0.007 (- 0.04 to 0.06); p = 0.791. A change in MoCA as compared to baseline was not different between groups (p = 0.761). Conclusions: Our results show that there was no statistical or clinical difference in postoperative NfL release between GA and hypnosis. GA with propofol was not associated with a different risk of neural injury compared to hypnosis. Trial registration: NCT04500236.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".