Cognitive Outcomes After Heart Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To summarize evidence on cognitive outcomes after heart valve surgery; secondary aim, to examine whether aortic and mitral valve surgery are associated with different cognitive outcomes. Design Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses systematic review and meta‐analysis. Setting Cardiac surgery. Participants Individuals undergoing heart valve surgery. Measurements We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for peer‐reviewed reports of individuals undergoing heart valve surgery who underwent pre‐ and postoperative cognitive assessment. Our initial search returned 1,475 articles, of which 12 were included. Postoperative cognitive results were divided into those from 1 week to 1 month (early outcomes, n pooled = 450) and from 2 to 6 months (intermediate outcomes; n pooled = 722). No studies with longer‐term outcomes were identified. Results Subjects had moderate early cognitive decline from baseline (Becker mean gain effect size (ES)=−0.39 ± 0.27) that improved slightly by 2 to 6 months (ES=–0.25 ± 0.38). Individuals undergoing aortic valve surgery—who were older on average than those undergoing mitral valve surgery (68 vs 57)—had greater early cognitive decline than those undergoing mitral valve surgery (ES=–0.68 vs −0.12), but both cohorts had similar decline 2 to 6 months postoperatively (ES=–0.27 vs −0.20). Conclusions Heart valve surgery is associated with cognitive decline over the 6 months after surgery, but outcomes beyond 6 months are unclear. These findings highlight the cognitive vulnerability of this population, especially older adults with aortic stenosis. © 2018 American Geriatrics Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2327–2334, 2018
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".