Effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation on postoperative cognitive function in older patients with lung cancer: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This trial was to examine the effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) on postoperative cognitive function in older patients who underwent thoracoscopic pulmonary resection. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. 128 patients scheduled for surgery were randomly assigned to the TEAS group and sham-TEAS group. A standardized intervention of TEAS or sham-TEAS on the acupoints of Baihui (DU20) and bilateral Neiguan (PC6), Hegu (LI4), and Zusanli (ST36) from 30 min before anesthesia induction until the end of the surgery, combined with a general anesthetic protocol performed in the two groups respectively. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) assessed via the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale at each time point. The secondary outcomes included the results of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) on pain and sleep, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC-QLQ-C30), and a chronic pain questionnaire at relative time points. Results: Participants who completed the 12-month trial of the two groups were well-matched in baseline demographic and clinical parameters. At postoperative day 1, day 7, and day 30 time points, the incidence of POCD in the sham-TEAS group was always significantly higher than in the TEAS group (65.4% vs 20%, 43.6% vs 7.3%, 40% vs 3.6%, all P < 0.001). Also, the TEAS group showed better scores of MMSE, sleep, and pain compared with the sham-TEAS group (all P < 0.001). At 6 and 12 months points, the global health scores of the TEAS group were still significantly higher than the sham-TEAS group, and the prevalence of chronic pain was significantly lower than the sham-TEAS group (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: TEAS could effectively improve the postoperative cognitive function and long-term life quality of geriatric patients with lung cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".