Effects of General Anesthesia Combined with Epidural Anesthesia on Cognitive Dysfunction and Inflammatory Markers of Patients after Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of general anesthesia (GA) combined with epidural anesthesia (GAEA) on postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and inflammatory markers in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). Study Design: A randomised controlled trial. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Anesthesiology, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan Province, China, from August 2019 to April 2020. METHODOLOGY: SPSS was used to randomly divide 142 cases into two groups, namely: the GA (n=71) and GAEA (n=71) categories. 128 candidates were used in this study. Cognitive function and the levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), interleukin 8 (IL-8), and tumor necrosis markers α (TNF-α) in serum were evaluated at baseline, 1, 3 and 7 days after operation by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), respectively. Pearson correlation analysis was used to assess the interrelationships between MoCA score and inflammatory markers levels. RESULTS: Compared to the GA group (n=64), the GAEA category (n=64) showed significantly higher MoCA score on 1 day and 3 days postoperatively (all p <0.05). IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-α in the GA group were significantly increased on 1, 3 and 7 days after surgery (all p <0.05). Pearson correlation analysis indicated that the three inflammatory markers were inversely correlated with cognitive function score (all p <0.05). The postoperative adverse events between the two groups were comparable (all p >0.05). CONCLUSION: Combining general and epidural anesthesia may reduce the incidence of POCD in patients undergoing esophagectomy by suppressing inflammatory response. Key Words: General anesthesia, Epidural anesthesia, Esophageal cancer, Postoperative cognitive dysfunction, Inflammatory markers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".