Association between previous appendectomy and cognitive impairment in adults: a case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between appendectomy and cognitive impairment in adults aged 50-70 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A case-control study was carried out with 270 patients between May and July 2023. Ninety cases (with cognitive impairment) and 180 controls (without impairment), diagnosed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), were assessed. RESULTS: 31.11% of the total cases with cognitive impairment were submitted to an appendectomy, with an average of 25 years since surgery. Regarding other surgeries: 40% with impairment underwent cholecystectomy and 23.33% reported other operations. The analysis revealed significant differences in age, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes and smoking between the groups. However, there was no significant difference by gender. Logistic regression analysis highlighted that age and past appendectomy were strongly associated with cognitive impairment, with an Odds Ratio (OR) of 1.20 and 12.91, respectively. Associations were also found with cholecystectomy (OR 7.33), other surgeries (OR 13.39) and smoking (OR 6.91). CONCLUSION: Appendectomy might be a significant risk factor for cognitive impairment in adults aged 50-70 years.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".