MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914079934 · doi:10.1097/cm9.0000000000000098

Effects of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam on postoperative cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients

2019· article· en· W2914079934 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Medical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDexmedetomidineMedicinePropofolAnesthesiaMidazolamSedationPostoperative cognitive dysfunctionSedativeRandomized controlled trialBispectral indexIncidence (geometry)SurgeryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a serious complication after surgery, especially in elderly patients. The anesthesia technique is a potentially modifiable risk factor for POCD. This study assessed the effects of dexmedetomidine, propofol or midazolam sedation on POCD in elderly patients who underwent hip or knee replacement under spinal anesthesia. METHODS: The present study was a prospective randomized controlled preliminary trial. From July 2013 and December 2014, a total of 164 patients aged 65 years or older who underwent hip or knee arthroplasty at China-Japan Friendship Hospital and 41 non-surgical controls were included in this study. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to 3 sedative groups. All the patients received combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) with midazolam, dexmedetomidine or propofol sedation. The sedative dose was adjusted to achieve light sedation (bispectral index[BIS] score between 70 and 85). All study participants and controls completed a battery of 5 neuropsychological tests before and 7 days after surgery. One year postoperatively, the patients and controls were interviewed over the telephone using the Montreal cognitive assessment 5-minute protocol. RESULTS: In all, 60 of 164 patients (36.6%) were diagnosed with POCD 7 days postoperatively, POCD incidence in propofol group was significantly lower than that in dexmedetomidine and midazolam groups (18.2% vs. 40.0%, 51.9%, χ = 6.342 and 13.603, P = 0.012 and < 0.001). When the patients were re-tested 1 year postoperatively, the incidence of POCD was not significantly different among the 3 groups (14.0%, 10.6% vs. 14.9%, χ = 0.016 and 0.382, P = 0.899 and 0.536). CONCLUSION: Among dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam sedation in elderly patients, propofol sedation shows a significant advantage in term of short-term POCD incidence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.247 · 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