Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review is a survey of the recent literature investigating the etiology and the relative incidence of postoperative neurological and cognitive dysfunction after cardiac surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies reviewed here have employed transcranial Doppler for detection of cerebral emboli and compared results between patients undergoing beating-heart versus conventional cardiopulmonary bypass. A transcranial Doppler device ostensibly discriminating between particulate and gaseous emboli has additionally been employed, yet despite a consistently lower incidence of cerebral emboli associated with avoidance of cardiopulmonary bypass, several groups have reported similar incidences of cognitive dysfunction across these procedures, suggesting other, potentially more important, factors. Two recent studies have focused on the hazards associated with perioperative anemia in both infants and older patients, and which can result in developmental delay or profound changes in cerebral blood flow. A further study has identified an adverse interaction with postoperative hypoxia. The use of intraortic filtration for capture and removal of particulate macroemboli has been associated with a reduction in the incidence of clinically apparent central-nervous-system injury and should be further investigated. Several other studies identify pre-existing levels of central-nervous-system impairment prior to surgery, underscoring the confounding issues introduced by the failure to include a non-surgical comparator group. SUMMARY: While further evidence of cerebral embolization continues to accrue, several studies suggest that other factors may be of equal or greater importance in cognitive dysfunction. Further investigations into the role of perioperative anemia, co-incident hypoxemia and other aspects of perioperative care, e.g. hyperglycemia and postoperative hyperthermia, are warranted.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".