Associated factors for postoperative delirium following major abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common postsurgical complication. The early identification of its risk factors is the first step toward reducing POD. The predictive factors for POD in patients after major abdominal surgery remain obscure. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively summarize the risk factors of POD after major abdominal surgery. METHODS: POD studies published between January, 1900 and June 2022 were obtained by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline. Two authors independently reviewed the studies to extract the risk factors and assessed the quality of related articles using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were recorded, and a meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4.1. RESULTS: Ten studies including total 2900 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, were eligible for analysis, 608 of whom developed POD, for a cumulative incidence of 21%. This pooled analysis suggested the statistically significant risk factors for POD were age, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, lower preoperative Mini-Mental State Examination score, cognitive impairment, preoperative Katz-ADL score <6, preoperative and postoperative hypoalbuminemia, lower preoperative insulin-like growth factor-1 levels, and longer duration of anesthesia. CONCLUSION: POD is common in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. This meta-analysis identified risk factors that may aid the early detection of POD and play a prominent role in preventing POD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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".