MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221131089 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2022.839472

Risk of Dementia or Cognitive Impairment in Sepsis Survivals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4221131089 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Siyuan Lei, Xuanlin Li, Hulei Zhao, Zhenzhen Feng, Liu Chun, Yang Xie, Jiansheng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaSepsisOdds ratioInternal medicineCochrane LibraryFunnel plotPublication biasCohort studySubgroup analysisCohortMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207