The relationship between cerebral oxygen saturation and quantitative metrics of neurological function after coronary bypass surgery: a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is well-known that patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery may experience neurological dysfunction following their operation. However, the nature of this dysfunction has not been properly quantified. Furthermore, the relationship between postoperative impairment and cerebral oxygen saturation during surgery has remained unclear. This study aims to define the feasibility of using robotic technology to quantify post-CABG neurocognitive function, and to correlate these objective metrics with intraoperative cerebral oxygenation. METHODS: Neurological function was tested using robotic technology and a standardized questionnaire before and 3 months after surgery. In addition, frontal lobe cerebral oxygenation was recorded using the FORESIGHT near-infrared spectrometer for the duration of the operation. Pre- and postoperative neurological assessment was performed for 24 participants. Of those 24, 20 participants had cerebral oxygenation recorded during their surgery. RESULTS: The cerebral oximeter captured 97.2% of the data. Majority of patients experienced no significant decline in overall neurocognitive function. Abnormal postoperative scores were most frequent in a sensorimotor task that involved additional cognitive load. In this reverse visually guided reaching task, postoperative scores significantly correlated with mean and minimum intraoperative cerebral oxygenation values, with lower values being associated with worse performance. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to use robotic technology as a quantitative and objective neurocognitive assessment method for patients undergoing CABG. The relationship between quantitative metrics of neurocognitive function and intraoperative cerebral oxygenation warrants further investigation.
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 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 | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".