MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322257997 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000000498

Psychological Sequelae of Surgery in a Prospective Cohort of Patients from Three Intraoperative Awareness Prevention Trials

2014· article· en· W2322257997 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth L. Whitlock, Thomas L. Rodebaugh, Afton L. Hassett, Amy Shanks, Ellen Kolarik, Janet Houghtby, Hannah M. West, Beth Burnside, Erik A. Shumaker, Alex Villafranca, William A. Edwards, Cheri A. Levinson, Julia Langer, Katya C. Fernandez, Renée El‐Gabalawy, Elizabeth Zhou, Jitender Sareen, Eric Jacobsohn, George A. Mashour, Michael S. Avidan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyCohortTelephone interviewChecklistIntraoperative AwarenessCohort studyPopulationElective surgeryPsychiatrySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Elective surgery can have long-term psychological sequelae, especially for patients who experience intraoperative awareness. However, risk factors, other than awareness, for symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after surgery are poorly defined, and practical screening methods have not been applied to a broad population of surgical patients. METHODS: The Psychological Sequelae of Surgery study was a prospective cohort study of patients previously enrolled in the United States and Canada in 3 trials for the prevention of intraoperative awareness. The 68 patients who experienced definite or possible awareness were matched with 418 patients who denied awareness based on age, sex, surgery type, and awareness risk. Participants completed the PTSD Checklist-Specific (PCL-S) and/or a modified Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview telephone assessment to identify symptoms of PTSD and symptom complexes consistent with a PTSD diagnosis. We then used structural equation modeling to produce a composite PTSD score and examined potential risk factors. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients were unreachable; of those contacted, 303 (88%) participated a median of 2 years postoperatively. Forty-four of the 219 patients (20.1%) who completed the PCL-S exceeded the civilian screening cutoff score for PTSD symptoms resulting from their surgery (15 of 35 [43%] with awareness and 29 of 184 [16%] without). Nineteen patients (8.7%; 5 of 35 [14%] with awareness and 14 of 184 [7.6%] without) both exceeded the cutoff and endorsed a breadth of symptoms consistent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth Edition diagnosis of PTSD attributable to their surgery. Factors independently associated with PTSD symptoms were poor social support, previous PTSD symptoms, previous mental health treatment, dissociation related to surgery, perceiving that one's life was threatened during surgery, and intraoperative awareness (all P ≤ 0.017). Perioperative dissociation was identified as a potential mediator for perioperative PTSD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Events in the perioperative period can precipitate psychological symptoms consistent with subsyndromal and syndromal PTSD. We not only confirmed the high rate of postoperative PTSD in awareness patients but also identified a significant rate in matched nonawareness controls. Screening surgical patients, especially those with potentially mediating risk factors such as intraoperative awareness or perioperative dissociation, for postoperative PTSD symptoms with the PCL-S is practical and could promote early referral, evaluation, and treatment.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations85
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207