Effect of dexmedetomidine on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in older patients undergoing pulmonary surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We investigated the effect of dexmedetomidine anesthesia on postoperative cognitive function after pulmonary surgery. Methods A blinded, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study was performed on 60 patients (age range 65–74 years) undergoing lobectomy by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (29 in the dexmedetomidine group; 31 in the placebo group). Dexmedetomidine group patients received dexmedetomidine, and placebo group patients received an equal volume of physiological saline 20 minutes before anesthesia induction. Cognitive function was evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment 1 day before surgery and on postoperative day (POD)1, POD3, and POD7. The regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO 2 ) was monitored continuously by near-infrared spectroscopy before anesthesia. Results The Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was significantly different between the two groups on POD1 (dexmedetomidine 26.4 ± 0.73 vs. placebo 25.5 ± 0.96) and POD3 (dexmedetomidine 27.1 ± 0.79 vs. placebo 26.6 ± 0.80). Specifically, attention and orientation scores were increased in the dexmedetomidine group on POD1 and POD3. The rSO 2 was not significantly different between the dexmedetomidine and placebo groups. Conclusion Dexmedetomidine given before induction of anesthesia could reduce the risk of postoperative cognitive dysfunction and might not decrease rSO 2 . Hence, dexmedetomidine could be employed in pulmonary surgical procedures, especially for older patients with a high risk of cognitive dysfunction.
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 | 0.009 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".