Intermediate and long-term cognitive effects in older adults secondary to cardiovascular procedures is uncommon but current evidence is insufficient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Fink HA, Hemmy LS, MacDonald R, et al. Intermediate- and long-term cognitive outcomes after cardiovascular procedures in older adults: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:107–17[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3]. Cardiovascular procedures are common in the older population.1 There is suspicion that these procedures may have a negative outcome on cognition.2 However, further research has indicated that there may have been pre-existing cognitive deficits as cognitive impairment is common in the older population.3 This systematic review examines the evidence of the relationship of coronary and carotid revascularisation, cardiac valve replacement and repair and ablation for atrial fibrillation on intermediate-term and long-term cognitive outcomes in adults 65 years or above, including the effects of procedure related stroke or transient ischaemic attack. This was a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies of adults aged 65 years … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnn%2BIntern%2BMed%26rft.volume%253D163%26rft.spage%253D107%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.7326%252FM14-2793%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F26192563%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M14-2793&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=26192563&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F20%2F6%2F221.atom
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".