MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Propofol, Triglycerides, and Acute Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Epidemiologic Analysis

2024· article· en· W4403325959 on OpenAlexaff
Kiyan Heybati, Jiawen Deng, Guozhen Xie, Keshav Poudel, Fangwen Zhou, Zeeshan Rizwan, Caitlin S. Brown, Christopher T Acker, Ognjen Gajic, Hemang Yadav

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicinePropofolAcute pancreatitisPancreatitisCenter (category theory)Intensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Propofol is one of the first-line sedative-hypnotic agents for critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation. Although propofol can elevate triglyceride levels, and the latter is a risk factor for pancreatitis, the association between propofol and acute pancreatitis is unclear. Objectives We sought to determine the clinical impact and potential associations between propofol infusion, hypertriglyceridemia, and acute pancreatitis. Methods This is an observational multicenter study of adults (⩾18 yr old) who were admitted to an intensive care unit, who required mechanical ventilation and received continuous propofol infusion for at least 24 hours. The primary outcomes were the frequency of hypertriglyceridemia (>400 mg/dl) and acute pancreatitis. Further analyses were done to determine the clinical impact of elevated triglyceride levels (i.e., sedation changes) and risk factors for pancreatitis development. Results Of 11,828 patients included, 33.2% (n = 3,922) had triglyceride levels measured, of whom 21.7% (n = 851) had hypertriglyceridemia at 4.5 days (SD = 6.8) after propofol initiation. Of those still requiring sedation, 70.4% (n = 576/818) received alternative sedatives after developing hypertriglyceridemia. Pancreatitis occurred in 1.2% of patients (n = 47/3,922) and was more frequent in those with hypertriglyceridemia (3.2%, 27/851; vs. 0.7%, 20/3,071; P < 0.001). After adjustment for potential confounding variables, each 100 mg/dl increase in triglyceride levels was associated with an 11% increase in risk of pancreatitis. Propofol dose was not associated with pancreatitis development. Conclusions Acute pancreatitis is uncommon in patients receiving propofol infusion, and it occurs over a wide range of triglyceride levels, indicating a multifactorial pathophysiology. Hypertriglyceridemia frequently prompts the use of alternative sedatives. Further study is needed to determine how to best monitor and treat hypertriglyceridemia in critically ill patients receiving propofol infusion.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207