Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of neuromuscular blockers (NMBs) has revolutionized the practice of general anaesthesia, ushering in a new era where anaesthesia is conceptualized as a triad comprising narcosis, analgesia, and muscle relaxation. NMBs play a vital role in surgeries by facilitating tracheal intubation, preventing the movement of body and diaphragm, control of ventilation at normal partial pressure of carbon dioxide and counteraction of narcotic-induced truncal rigidity. However, the absence of specific guidelines for the selection and utilization of particular NMBs in various surgical contexts has led to inconsistencies within the healthcare system. Thus, a deep and thorough understanding of pharmacological aspects of NMBs is required for the selection and usage of particular NMB in clinical setting. Ideal NMBs are characterized by rapid onset, non-cumulative effects, independence from renal or hepatic function for elimination, rapid reversibility, and minimal adverse side effects. Among several NMBs, cisatracurium, an isomer of atracurium is a non-depolarizing intermediate-acting with characteristic features of high potency, smaller dosage requirement, no histamine release, no cardiovascular effects and elimination via organ-independent Hofmann reaction. Innumerable clinical experiments and trials suggest cisatracurium as safe, cost-effective, and better molecule with predictable recovery and no postoperative residual paralysis in comparison to other NMBs such as rocuronium, vecuronium, and pancuronium. In this review, we aimed to provide critical insights on the properties of NMBs first and then focused on the use of cisatracurium in cardiac surgeries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".