Risk of Dementia or Cognitive Impairment in Sepsis Survivals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is growing evidence that sepsis survivors are at increased risk of developing new-onset atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and neurological diseases. However, whether sepsis survivals increase the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment remains to be further explored. Objective The objective of this study was to determine whether sepsis survivals increase the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases for cohort studies or case-control studies from their inception to November 5, 2021. The quality of this study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). The Stata software (version 15.1) was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) of dementia or cognitive impairment in sepsis survivals. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the source of heterogeneity. Funnel plots and Egger’s test were used to detect the publication bias. Results Eight studies (i.e., seven cohort studies and one case-control study) involving 891,562 individuals were included. The quality assessment results showed that the average score of NOS was over 7, and the overall quality of the included studies was high. Pooled analyses indicated that sepsis survivals were associated with an increased risk of all-cause dementia (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.23–2.15, I 2 = 96.4%, p = 0.001). However, there was no obvious association between sepsis survivals and the risk of cognitive impairment (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 0.59–5.32, I 2 = 87.4%, p = 0.306). Subgroup analyses showed that severe sepsis was associated with an increased risk of dementia or cognitive impairment (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.19–3.31, I 2 = 75.3%, p = 0.008); such risk was higher than that of other unspecified types of sepsis (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.04–2.09, I 2 = 97.6%, p = 0.029). Conclusion Sepsis survivals are associated with an increased risk of all-cause dementia but not with cognitive impairment. Appropriate management and prevention are essential to preserve the cognitive function of sepsis survivors and reduce the risk of dementia.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".