MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048146950 · doi:10.3892/etm.2020.9113

Dexmedetomidine improves early postoperative neurocognitive disorder in elderly male patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy

2020· article· en· W3048146950 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haixia Shi, Xuejiang Du, Fan Wu, Yajuan Hu, Zhipeng Xv, Weidong Mi

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonConcerns/Issues about Data;Duplication of/in Article;Euphemisms for Duplication;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;Investigation by Third Party;Unreliable Data;
Date3/19/2024 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental and Therapeutic Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPerioperativeDexmedetomidinePlaceboPostoperative cognitive dysfunctionSurgeryVisual analogue scaleInternal medicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perioperative neurocognitive disorder (PND) is a common complication following thoracic surgery that frequently occurs in patients ≥65 years. PND includes postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and postoperative delirium (POD). To investigate whether intravenous dexmedetomidine (DEX) is able to improve neurocognitive function in elderly male patients following thoracoscopic lobectomy, a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was performed at the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University (Hohhot, China). Patients aged ≥65 years were enrolled and were subjected to thoracic surgery under general anesthesia. A computer-generated randomization sequence was used to randomly assign patients (at a 1:1 ratio) to receive either intravenous DEX (0.5 µg/kg per h, from induction until chest closure) or placebo (intravenous normal saline). The primary endpoint was the result of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). The secondary endpoints were the results of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and those obtained with the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), as well as the incidence of POCD and POD during the first 7 postoperative days. Other observational indexes included sleep quality at night, self-anxiety scale prior to the operation and 7 days following the operation and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score at rest and during movement on the first and third day following the operation. Furthermore, at 6 h following surgery, the MMSE score in the DEX group was significantly higher than that in the saline group. At 6 h and on the first day postoperatively, the MoCA score in the DEX group was significantly higher than that in the saline group. The incidence of POCD and POD in the DEX group was 13.2 and 7.5%, respectively, while that in the saline group was 35.8 and 11.3%, respectively. There was a significant difference in the incidence of POCD between the two groups (P<0.01). In the DEX group, mean sleep quality was increased, whereas the mean VAS was decreased compared with the corresponding values in the saline group. In conclusion, elderly male patients who underwent thoracoscopic lobectomy under continuous infusion of DEX (0.5 µg/kg/h) exhibited a reduced incidence of POCD during the first 7 postoperative days as compared with the placebo group. Furthermore, DEX improved the subjective sleep quality in the first postoperative night, reduced anxiety and alleviated postoperative pain. In addition, it increased the incidence of bradycardia. The present study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn; registration no. ChiCTR-IPR-17010958).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental and Therapeutic MedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207