MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390507625 · doi:10.1111/jgs.18736

Association between surgery and rate of incident dementia in older adults: A <scp>population‐based</scp> retrospective cohort study

2024· article· en· W4390507625 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Krista Reich, Sudeep S. Gill, Roderic G. Eckenhoff, Miles Berger, Peter C. Austin, Paula A. Rochon, Paul Nguyen, Zahra Goodarzi, Dallas Seitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreHotchkiss Brain InstituteHealth Sciences CentreWomen's College HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on AgingInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsMedicineDementiaRetrospective cohort studyCohortCohort studyGerontologyAssociation (psychology)PopulationSurgeryInternal medicineDiseaseEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The risk of incident dementia after surgery in older adults is unclear. The study objective was to examine the rate of incident dementia among older adults after elective surgery compared with a matched nonsurgical control group. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, propensity-matched retrospective cohort study using data from linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. All community-dwelling individuals aged 66 years and older who underwent one of five major elective surgeries between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2011 were included. Each surgical patient was matched 1:1 on surgical specialty of the surgeon at consultation, age, sex, fiscal year of entry, and propensity score with a patient who attended an outpatient visit with a surgeon of the same surgical specialty but did not undergo surgery. Patients were followed for up to 5 years after cohort entry for the occurrence of a new dementia diagnosis, defined from administrative data. Cause-specific hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association between surgery and the hazard of incident dementia. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 27,878 individuals (13,939 matched pairs) were included in the analysis. A total of 640 (4.6%) individuals in the surgical group and 965 (6.9%) individuals in the control group developed dementia over the 5-year follow-up period. Individuals who underwent surgery had a reduced rate of incident dementia compared with their matched nonsurgical controls (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80-0.97; p = 0.01). This association was persistent in most subgroups and after sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Elective surgery did not increase the rate of incident dementia when compared with matched nonsurgical controls. This could be an important consideration for patients and surgeons when elective surgery is considered.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207