MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413981094 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331358

Effects of s-ketamine and midazolam on respiratory variability: A randomized controlled pilot trial

2025· article· en· W4413981094 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Oscar F. C. van den Bosch, Johan P. A. van Lennep, Ricardo Álvarez-Jiménez, Henriët van Middendorp, Andrea W.M. Evers, Monique A. H. Steegers, Patrick Schober, Stephan A. Loer

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDutch Arthritis AssociationNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekArthritis SocietyDutch Arthritis Society
KeywordsMidazolamKetamineMedicineRespiratory rateAnesthesiaRespiratory systemFibromyalgiaSedationRandomized controlled trialCrossover studyHeart ratePhysical therapyInternal medicinePlaceboBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

S-ketamine and midazolam are frequently used to provide sedation while maintaining spontaneous respiration. However, the effects of these agents on respiratory variability, which reflects the adaptability of the respiratory system, have not been thoroughly explored. We evaluated these effects in a randomized controlled pilot trial. This study was conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial originally designed to assess the effects of s-ketamine conditioning on pain sensitivity in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome. Participants were randomly assigned to receive an infusion of either s-ketamine (0.3 mg kg-1 h-1), midazolam (0.05 mg kg-1 h-1), or saline in a blinded fashion. Mean respiratory rate, variability of respiratory rate (VRR), and variability of tidal volume (VTV) were measured continuously and non-invasively with a bio-impedance method. Changes during drug infusion were compared in a linear mixed model to assess the effects of s-ketamine and midazolam compared to saline. Data were analyzed for 57 experiments in 28 participants. Their median baseline variabilities of respiratory rate and tidal volume were 0.19 (IQR: 0.16-0.25) and 0.23 (0.19-0.34), respectively. While mean respiratory rate was not affected, midazolam resulted in a significant decrease in both VRR (ß = -0.071, 95% CI: -0.120 to -0.021) and VTV (ß = -0.117, 95% CI: -0.170 to -0.062). In contrast, s-ketamine appeared to produce a smaller decrease in VTV (ß = -0.062, 95% CI: -0.118 to -0.003) with VRR remaining unaffected (ß = -0.036, 95% CI: -0.092 to 0.019). In conclusion, our study demonstrates that midazolam reduces respiratory variability, potentially impairing the adaptability of the respiratory system. In contrast, s-ketamine largely preserved respiratory variability, suggesting it may be a safer alternative for sedation in patients with impaired spontaneous breathing. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical implications of these observations in patients undergoing sedation.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207