Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Associated With Awake Craniotomy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Awake craniotomy (AC) enables real-time monitoring of cortical and subcortical functions when lesions are in eloquent brain areas. AC patients are exposed to various preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative stressors, which might affect their mental health. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to better understand stress, anxiety, and depression in AC patients. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from January 1, 2000, to April 20, 2022, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-seven records were identified that fit our inclusion and exclusion criteria for screening. Overall, 24 articles consisting of 1450 patients from 13 countries were included. Sixteen studies (66.7%) were prospective, whereas 8 articles (33.3%) were retrospective. Studies evaluated stress, anxiety, and depression during different phases of AC. Twenty-two studies (91.7%) were conducted on adults, and 2 studies were on pediatrics (8.3 %). Glioma was the most common AC treatment with 615 patients (42.4%). Awake-awake-awake and asleep-awake-asleep were the most common protocols, each used in 4 studies, respectively (16.7%). Anxiety was the most common psychological outcome evaluated in 19 studies (79.2%). The visual analog scale and self-developed questionnaire by the authors (each n = 5, 20.8%) were the most frequently tools used. Twenty-three studies (95.8%) concluded that AC does not increase stress, anxiety, and/or depression in AC patients. One study (4.2%) identified younger age associated with panic attack. CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, AC does not cause an increase in stress, anxiety, and depression; however, the psychiatric impact of AC should not be underestimated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".