Association Between Lower Preoperative Cognition With Intraoperative Electroencephalographic Features Consistent With Deep States of Anesthesia in Older Patients: An Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with low cognitive performance are thought to have a higher risk of postoperative neurocognitive disorders. Here we analyzed the relationship between preoperative cognition and anesthesia-induced brain dynamics. We hypothesized that patients with low cognitive performance would be more sensitive to anesthetics and would show differences in electroencephalogram (EEG) activity consistent with a brain anesthesia overdose. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis from a previously reported observational study. We evaluated cognitive performance using the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) test. All patients received general anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane or desflurane during elective major abdominal surgery. We analyzed the EEG using spectral, coherence, and phase-amplitude modulation analyses. RESULTS: Patients were separated into a low MoCA group (<26 points, n = 12) and a high MoCA group (n = 23). There were no differences in baseline EEG, nor end-tidal age-corrected minimum alveolar concentration (MACage). However, under anesthesia, the low MoCA group had lower α-β power (high MoCA: 2.9 [interquartile range {IQR}: 0.6-5.8 dB] versus low MoCA: -1.2 [IQR: -2.1 to 0.6 dB], difference 4.1 [1.0-5.7]) and a lower α peak frequency (high MoCA: 9.0 [IQR: 8.3-9.8 Hz] versus low MoCA: 7.5 [IQR: 6.3-9.0 Hz], difference 1.5 [0-2.3]) compared to the high MoCA group. The low MoCA group also had a lower α band coherence and a stronger peak-max phase-amplitude coupling (PAC). Finally, patients in the low MoCA group had longer emergence times (high MoCA 663 ± 345 seconds versus low MoCA: 960 ± 352 seconds, difference 297 [15-578]). Multiple linear regression shows up that both age and MoCA scores are independently associated with intraoperative α-β power. CONCLUSIONS: All these EEG features, together with a prolonged emergence time, are consistent with the possibility that older patients with low cognitive performance are receiving a brain anesthesia overdose compare to cognitive normal patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".