MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3108831475 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.2693

Early postoperative cognitive dysfunction after simultaneous coronary artery bypass grafting and carotid endarterectomy

2020· article· en· W3108831475 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
О. В. Малева, И. Д. Сырова, О. А. Трубникова, О. Л. Барбараш

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarotid endarterectomyQuartileMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPostoperative cognitive dysfunctionEndarterectomyNeuropsychologyCardiologyCognitive testInternal medicineCognitionAnesthesiaSurgeryConfidence intervalCarotid arteriesCognitive impairmentPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose To assess cognitive status after simultaneous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and carotid endarterectomy (CEE). Material & methods. Changes in cognitive status and the incidence of POCD were evaluated in the early postoperative period after simultaneous CABG and CEE. 53 patients with polyvascular disease (PolyVD) undergoing CABG and CEE were included in the study. Patients were assigned to two groups. 25 patients without mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the mean age of 64.3±7.9 years, were included in Group 1 and 28 patients with MCI, the mean age of 65.3±6.75 years, were included in Group 2. Neuropsychological testing was performed on days 2 before surgery and on days 7 after surgery using the psycho-physiological testing software “Status PF”. Attention was assessed with the Bourdon's test or proofreading test. Memory was estimated with the 10 numbers memorizing test, 10 words memorizing test, and 10 syllables memorizing test. The assessment of neurodynamics included the measurement of the complex visual-motor reaction time (VMRT), brain performance (BP), and functional mobility of the nervous processes (FMNP). The presence of POCD was estimated as a 20% decline on 20% of the tests. A reference range for neuropsychological indicators (13 indicators of the test battery) was set at the intervals corresponding to the ranges between the quartiles [Q25; Q75] in healthy people. Thus, cognitive status scale includes low cognitive status with the values ranging from 0 to 0.34, below the average - from 0.35 to 0.51, the average - from 0.52 to 0.7, and high cognitive status >0.7 to 1.0. Early postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) was diagnosed as a 20% decline in memory, attention, and neurodynamics from the baseline on 20% of the tests passed. Statistical analysis was performed using the “Advanced” software package. Results At baseline, cognitive status in patients without MCI was below the average (0.38±0.2), whereas in MCI patients it was lower by 32% and corresponded to low (0.26±0.1; p=0.03). Cognitive status did not differ significantly between both groups in the postoperative period, but a trend towards its decrease was determined (0.34±0.2 vs. 0.27±0.13, p>0.5). However, the incidence of early POCD in patients without MCI was 14 (56%), and in patients with MCI - 20 (71%) patients. Conclusion At baseline, patients with PolyVD, regardless of the presence of MCI, according to the results of the comprehensive examination, showed low and below the average cognitive status. Simultaneous CABG and CEE does not prevent the deterioration of cognitive functions in patients with PolyVD in the early postoperative period. Patients with PolyVD undergoing myocardial and brain revascularization have a high risk of worsening cognitive disorders and need to individual approach to make a reasonable choice of the optimal surgical strategy. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Institute

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→