MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4360600278

A Clinical Trial of a Novel Electroencephalography Device as a Predictor of Postoperative Delirium.

2023· article· en· W4360600278 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L Harold Barnwell

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumNeurocognitivePerioperativeMedicineCognitionElectroencephalographyPostoperative cognitive dysfunctionEmergence deliriumAnesthesiaIntensive care medicinePsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postoperative delirium is a public health and research priority. The International Perioperative Neurotoxicity Working Group recommends baseline cognitive function be assessed for older patients prior to surgery and anesthesia. Perioperative cognitive screening tools trialed in anesthesia are not routinely incorporated into clinical practice related to validity, reliability, or practicality concerns. The ideal perioperative cognitive screening tool would be rapid; easily administrable; valid; reliable; automatically scored; void of language, cultural, and education bias; and cost-efficient. No such tool currently exists. We explored baseline and postoperative neurocognitive characteristics that may help to establish predictive and trend metrics for perioperative neurocognitive assessment in older surgical patients using a novel, Food and Drug Administration-cleared point-of-care electroencephalography device (WAViMed™, Boulder, CO). To our knowledge, our study is the first to assess the device as a perioperative neurocognitive assessment tool. Although an association between P300 auditory-evoked potentials and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores was not identified, further investigation is warranted given the magnitude of impact that such a device might have on patient outcomes and healthcare costs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→