The effects of dexmedetomidine and remimazolam on spinal anesthesia in patients with anxiety disorder: A retrospective case-control study on intraoperative sedation quality and postoperative cognitive function.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anxiety disorder patients are accompanied by significant dysfunction and other problems, clinical treatment faces great challenges. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of dexmedetomidine and remimazolam on spinal anesthesia in anxiety disorder patients, to provide a clinical reference point. 80 anxiety disorder patients coming to our hospital for intrathecal anaesthesia surgery from June 2022 to June 2024 were divided into control group (n=40) and study group (n=40). Remimazolam was used in both groups and dexmedetomidine was added in study group. The heart rates (HR) and means of arterial pressures (MAP), Ramsay scores, visual analog scale (VAS) and hamilton analysis of metabolic anxiety scale (HAMA) scores, mini-mental state examination (MMSE), montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA) scores, serum platelet activating factors (PAF) and interferon gamma (IFN-γ) and adverse reactions were compared among the both groups. Compared to control group, HR and MAP levels, MMSE and MoCA scores, and IFN-γ levels were significantly increased, and Ramsay scores, VAS scores, HAMA scores and PAF levels were significantly decreased in the study group (P<0.05). No significant difference in the adverse reaction incidence of the both groups (P>0.05). Spinal anesthesia with dexmedetomidine and remimazolam provides better anesthesia in anxiety disorders 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".