Outcomes with spinal versus general anesthesia for patients with and without preoperative cognitive impairment: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The effect of spinal versus general anesthesia on the risk of postoperative delirium or other outcomes for patients with or without cognitive impairment (including dementia) is unknown. METHODS: Post hoc secondary analysis of a multicenter pragmatic trial comparing spinal versus general anesthesia for adults aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery. RESULTS: Among patients randomized to spinal versus general anesthesia, new or worsened delirium occurred in 100/295 (33.9%) versus 107/283 (37.8%; odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.19) among persons with cognitive impairment and 70/432 (16.2%) versus 71/445 (16.0%) among persons without cognitive impairment (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.47, p = 0.46 for interaction). Delirium severity, in-hospital complications, and 60-day functional recovery did not differ by anesthesia type in patients with or without cognitive impairment. DISCUSSION: Anesthesia type is not associated with differences in delirium and functional outcomes among persons with or without cognitive impairment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".