Correlation analysis between plasma biomarkers albumin, fibrinogen, and their ratio with postoperative delirium in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the correlation between plasma biomarkers, such as albumin and fibrinogen, and their ratio with postoperative delirium (POD) in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. METHODS: Relevant observational cohort studies were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases as of March 2023. This meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4.1 and Stata 15.0 software. For continuous variables with non-uniform units, the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used; otherwise, the mean difference (MD) and 95% CIs were employed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied to assess the quality of included literature. RESULTS: = 80%), we conducted a subgroup and sensitivity analysis, and confirmed that the association of albumin levels was not influenced by surgery type, design or delirium evaluation instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative albumin, fibrinogen and AFR levels were associated with POD, potentially aiding in identifying high-risk patients and playing a key role in preventing POD.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it