Incidence and risk factors for postoperative delirium after head and neck cancer surgery: an updated meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a frequent neurologic dysfunction that often leads to more negative outcomes. Early identification of patients who are vulnerable to POD and early implementation of appropriate management strategies could decrease its occurrence and improve patient prognosis. Therefore, this meta-analysis comprehensively and quantitatively summarized the prevalence and related predictive factors of POD in head and neck cancer surgical patients. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for observational studies that reported the prevalence and risk factors for POD after head and neck cancer surgery and were published from their inception until December 31, 2022. Two reviewers independently selected qualified articles and extracted data. The qualities of related papers were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 were applied to analysis the data and conduct the meta-analysis. RESULTS: = 93.2%). The results of this pooled analysis demonstrated that the statistically significant risk factors for POD were increased age (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03-1.07, P < 0.001), age > 75 years (OR: 6.52, 95% CI: 3.07-13.87, P < 0.001), male sex (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.06-4.97, P = 0.04), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (OR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.44-3.33, P < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (OR: 2.73, 95% CI: 1.24-6.01, P = 0.01), and history of smoking (OR: 2.74, 95% CI: 1.13-6.65, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: POD frequently occurs after head and neck cancer surgery. Several independent predictors for POD were identified, which might contribute to identifying patients at high risk for POD and play a prominent role in preventing POD in patients following head and neck cancer surgery.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".