MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776958308 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000009314

Relationship between general anesthesia and Alzheimer disease

2017· article· en· W2776958308 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geun Joo Choi, Hyun Kang, Chong Wha Baek, Yong Hun Jung, Jeong Wook Kim, Young Cheol Woo

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education, Science and TechnologyNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyMeta-analysisMEDLINESystematic reviewDementiaStrengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiologyDiseaseCohort studyPublication biasFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer disease (AD) entails a long-term progressive decline in the cognitive ability to think and remember, and it has become a major concern for patients receiving surgery and anesthesia. However, studies investigating the relationship between general anesthesia and AD have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, we plan to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relationship between general anesthesia and AD, and to verify whether general anesthesia is an independent risk factor for AD. METHODS: A systematic and comprehensive search will be performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google scholar from their inception to August 2017. Peer-reviewed cohort and case-control studies including nested case-control studies reporting the relationship between general anesthesia and AD will be eligible for inclusion. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity of estimates across studies as well as publication bias will be assessed. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. All statistical analyses will be conducted using the Stata SE version 15.0. RESULTS: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: Our study will provide the evidence for the relationship between general anesthesia and dementia. The review will benefit patients and anesthesiologists, surgeons, and policymakers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval and informed consent are not required, as the study will be a literature review and will not involve direct contact with patients or alterations to patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review has been registered in the PROSPERO network (registration number: CRD42017073790).

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207