Comparison of propofol and desflurane for postoperative neurocognitive function in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A prospective randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, 40–50% of survivors experience cognitive dysfunction, which affects their quality of life. Anesthetic agents play a pivotal role in aneurysm surgeries. However, substantial evidence regarding their effects on neurocognitive function is lacking. This study evaluated the effects of propofol and desflurane on postoperative neurocognitive function and serum S-100B levels. Methods: One hundred patients were equally randomized to receive either propofol (Group P) or desflurane (Group D). Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale at three different time points: Preoperatively, at the time of discharge, and one month after surgery. Perioperative serum levels of S-100B were also measured. Results: The preoperative mean cognitive score in Group P was 21.64 + 4.46 and in Group D was 21.66 + 4.07 (P = 0.79). At discharge, a significant decrease in cognitive scores was observed compared to preoperative scores (Group P- 20.91 + 3.94, P = 0.03 and Group D-19.28 + 4.22, P = 0.00); however, scores were comparable between the two groups (P = 0.09). One month following surgery, mean cognitive scores were 22.63 + 3.57 in Group P and 20.74 + 3.89 in Group D, and the difference was significant (P = 0.04). Higher memory and orientation scores were observed in Group P than in Group D at one month (P < 0.05) in the subgroup analysis. Both groups had similar serum S-100B levels. Conclusion: The mean cognitive scores one month after surgery improved significantly with propofol compared with desflurane, but without clinical significance. Individual domain analysis demonstrated that orientation and memory scores were better preserved with propofol.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".