Pre-operative biomarkers and imaging tests as predictors of post-operative delirium in non-cardiac surgical patients: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-operative delirium (POD) is a common post-operative complication in elderly individuals and imposes a significant health and financial burden. Identifying predictive biomarkers may help understand the pathophysiology of POD. Our objective is to summarize the evidence of pre-operative biomarkers and imaging tests to predict POD in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. METHODS: A systematic search of English language articles in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, PsychINFO, PubMed and ClinicalTrials. Gov up to January 2018 was performed. Studies that used biomarkers or imaging tests to predict POD and a validated POD assessment tool were included. Animal studies, paediatric, cardiac and intracranial surgery were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality In Prognosis Study tool. RESULTS: Thirty-four prospective cohort studies involving 4424 patients were included. Nineteen studies described serum tests [Interleukin-6, Insulin-like Growth Factor 1, C-Reactive Protein (CRP), cholinesterases, apolipoprotein-E genotype, leptin, hypovitaminosis, hypoalbuminaemia, gamma-amino butyric acid], 10 described cerebral-spinal fluid tests (monoamine precursor, melatonin, acute phase proteins, S100B and neurofibrillary tangles), and 5 described imaging tests. Two studies had high risk of bias due to unclear outcome measurement and study participation. CRP was significantly associated with POD in 5 studies. Other biomarkers were either examined by only a single study or two or more studies with conflicting results. CONCLUSION: CRP is the most promising biomarker associated with POD. However, we are still in the early stages in identifying biomarkers and imaging tests that may further understanding of the pathophysiology of POD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".