MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978101007 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000004469

Prevention of Early Postoperative Decline: A Randomized, Controlled Feasibility Trial of Perioperative Cognitive Training

2019· article· en· W2978101007 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian O’Gara, Ariel Mueller, Doris Vanessa I. Gasangwa, Melissa Patxot, Shahzad Shaefi, Kamal R. Khabbaz, Valerie Banner‐Goodspeed, Alvaro Pascal-Leone, Edward R. Marcantonio, Balachundhar Subramaniam

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeDeliriumPostoperative cognitive dysfunctionInterquartile rangeRandomized controlled trialIncidence (geometry)PrehabilitationAnesthesiaEmergency medicineCognitionSurgeryPhysical therapyIntensive care medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) are common after cardiac surgery and contribute to an increased risk of postoperative complications, longer length of stay, and increased hospital mortality. Cognitive training (CT) may be able to durably improve cognitive reserve in areas deficient in delirium and POCD and, therefore, may potentially reduce the risk of these conditions. We sought to determine the feasibility and potential efficacy of a perioperative CT program to reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium and POCD in older cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial at a single tertiary care center. Participants included 45 older adults age 60-90 undergoing cardiac surgery at least 10 days from enrollment. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to either perioperative CT via a mobile device or a usual care control. The primary outcome of feasibility was evaluated by enrollment patterns and adherence to protocol. Secondary outcomes of postoperative delirium and POCD were assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, respectively. Patient satisfaction was assessed via a postoperative survey. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of eligible patients were enrolled. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) adherence (as a percentage of prescribed minutes played) was 39% (20%-68%), 6% (0%-37%), and 19% (0%-56%) for the preoperative, immediate postoperative, and postdischarge periods, respectively. Median (IQR) training times were 245 (136-536), 18 (0-40), and 122 (0-281) minutes for each period, respectively. The incidence of postoperative delirium (CT group 5/20 [25%] versus control 3/20 [15%]; P = .69) and POCD (CT group 53% versus control 37%; P = .33) was not significantly different between groups for either outcome in this limited sample. CT participants reported a high level of agreement (on a scale of 0-100) with statements that the program was easy to use (median [IQR], 87 [75-97]) and enjoyable (85 [79-91]). CT participants agreed significantly more than controls that their memory (median [IQR], 75 [54-82] vs 51 [49-54]; P = .01) and thinking ability (median [IQR], 78 [64-83] vs 50 [41-68]; P = .01) improved as a result of their participation in the study. CONCLUSIONS: A CT program designed for use in the preoperative period is an attractive target for future investigations of cognitive prehabilitation in older cardiac surgery patients. Changes in the functionality of the program and enrichment techniques may improve adherence in future trials. Further investigation is necessary to determine the potential efficacy of cognitive prehabilitation to reduce the risk of postoperative delirium and POCD.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations146
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207