MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409079666 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1552934

Effects of the subanesthetic dose of esketamine on postoperative sleep quality in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4409079666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ying Chen, Jia He, Rong Huang, Min Zhong, Wenxuan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDouble blindAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialSleep qualitySurgeryPlaceboPharmacologyInsomniaAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor among women worldwide. Surgical intervention is a critical component of treatment, yet the associated stress and anxiety can significantly disrupt postoperative sleep quality. Emerging evidences suggest that esketamine may offer benefits in alleviating emotional distress and enhancing sleep. The purpose of this study was to observe the effects of intraoperative subanesthetic dose of esketamine on the sleep of patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. Methods This randomized, double-blind, controlled trial enrolled 145 female patients, who were randomly assigned to either the esketamine group (Group E, n = 72) or the control group (Group C, n = 73). Patients in Group E received esketamine (0.2 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 0.1 mg/kg/h infusion), while those in Group C received saline (0.2 mL/kg loading dose, followed by 0.1 mL/kg/h infusion). The primary outcome was the total score on the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) measured on postoperative day (POD) 1. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, the incidence of postoperative adverse events and rescue analgesia, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores, short-form McGill’s Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) sensory and affective scores, and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scores. Results No significant differences were observed in the total RCSQ scores on POD 1 between Group E and Group C (median [interquartile range]: 46 [32–68] vs. 54 [40–71], p > 0.05). Recovery time was significantly longer in Group E compared to Group C (8 [5–11] vs. 6 [4–11] minutes; p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events or remedial analgesia within 48 h postoperatively. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the groups in pain VAS scores, and SF-MPQ sensory or affective scores at 4, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. PSQI scores on POD 30 were not significantly different between the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion For female patients without pre-existing sleep disorders undergoing modified radical mastectomy, intraoperative subanesthetic esketamine may not significantly impact postoperative sleep quality but potentially contribute to a prolonged recovery time. Trial registration This trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on July 03, 2022 ( https://www.chictr.org.cn ; Registration number: ChiCTR2200061818).

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207