Influence of Neostigmine on Early Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction in Older Adult Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to investigate the efficacy of neostigmine on postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and determine its effect on systematic markers of oxidative stress in older patients. METHODS: This double-blind placebo-controlled trial enrolled 118 elderly patients (≥65 years) undergoing noncardiac surgeries who were allocated to a neostigmine treatment group (0.04 mg/kg) or a placebo control group (normal saline) postoperatively. POCD was diagnosed if the Z -scores for the mini-mental state examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment were both ≤-1.96. Postoperative serum levels of malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) were also compared. Multivariable regression analysis with dose adjustment of atropine was used to demonstrate the influence of neostigmine on the incidence of POCD. RESULTS: Patients receiving neostigmine had a significantly reduced incidence of POCD compared to patients who were treated with placebo on the first day after surgery (-22%, 95% confidence interval [CI], -37 to -7), but not on the third (8%, 95% CI, -4 to 20) or seventh day after surgery (3%, 95% CI, -7 to 13). Postoperative plasma MDA levels were significantly lower ( P = .016), but SOD and BDNF levels were increased ( P = .036 and .013, respectively) in the neostigmine group compared to the control group on the first day after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Neostigmine reduced POCD on the first day after noncardiac surgery in older patients. Neostigmine treatment inhibited oxidative stress and increased serum BDNF levels. There was no significant influence of neostigmine on POCD on the third or seventh day after surgery. The clinical influence of neostigmine on POCD should be further investigated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".