MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction after Noncardiac Surgery

2007· review· en· W2105715916 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePostoperative cognitive dysfunctionNeuropsychologyCognitionCognitive impairmentMEDLINERegional anesthesiaAnesthesiaIntensive care medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a systematic review on the research into postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) in noncardiac surgery to ascertain the status of the evidence and to examine the methodologies used in studies. The review demonstrated that in the early weeks after major noncardiac surgery, a significant proportion of people show POCD, with the elderly being more at risk. Minimal evidence was found that patients continue to show POCD up to 6 months and beyond. Studies on regional versus general anesthesia have not found differences in POCD. Many studies were found to be underpowered, and a number of other methodologic difficulties were identified. These include the different types of surgery in studies and variations in the number and range of neuropsychological tests used. A particular issue is the variety of definitions used to classify individuals as having POCD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.292 · 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