MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4383058649 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072068

Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of neuroinflammation and postoperative neurocognitive disorders in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4383058649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huiru Feng, Yang Liu, Xue Wang, Chunxiu Wang, Tianlong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisDementiaMEDLINENeurocognitiveSystematic reviewNeuroinflammationBioinformaticsInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePsychiatryCognitionDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative neurocognitive disorders (PNDs) are characterised by gradual cognitive decline or change occurring after anaesthesia and surgery, and they are common in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. The onset of PNDs has been associated with dementia or other types of neurocognitive disorders in later life. Moreover, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of neuroinflammation, including amyloid beta-40 peptide, amyloid beta-42 peptide, total tau protein, phosphorylated tau protein and neurofilament light chain, have been reported to be crucial in several high-quality clinical studies on PNDs. However, the role of these biomarkers in the onset of PNDs remains controversial. Therefore, this study aims to determine the association between CSF biomarkers of neuroinflammation and the onset of PNDs in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery, which will provide novel insights for investigating PNDs and other types of dementia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviewd and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. Moreover, we will search MEDLINE (via OVID), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library without any language and date restrictions. Observational studies will be included. Two reviewers will independently perform the entire procedure, and disagreements will be settled by discussion between them and consultation with a third reviewer. Standardised electronic forms will be generated to extract data. The risk of bias in the individual studies will be evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. All statistical analyses will be performed using the RevMan software or the Stata software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will include peer-reviewed published articles; thus, no ethical issues will be involved. Further, the final manuscript will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022380180.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.028
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.004

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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