Risk Factors for Postoperative Delirium Severity After Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery in Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a serious complication following deep brain stimulation (DBS) but only received little attention. Its main risk factors are higher age and preoperative cognitive deficits. These are also main risk factors for long-term cognitive decline after DBS in Parkinson's disease (PD). Objective: To identify risk factors for POD severity after DBS surgery in PD. Methods: 57 patients underwent DBS (21 female; age 60.2±8.2; disease duration 10.5±5.9 years). Preoperatively, general, PD- and surgery-specific predictors were recorded. Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the neuropsychological test battery CANTAB ConnectTM were used to test domain-specific cognition. Volumes of the cholinergic basal forebrain were calculated with voxel-based morphometry. POD severity was recorded with the delirium scales Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and Nursing Delirium Scale (NU-DESC). Spearman correlations were calculated for univariate analysis of predictors and POD severity and linear regression with elastic net regularization and leave-one-out cross-validation was performed to fit a multivariable model. Results: 21 patients (36.8%) showed mainly mild courses of POD following DBS. Correlation between predicted and true POD severity was significant (spearman rho = 0.365, p = 0.001). Influential predictors were age (p < 0.001), deficits in attention and motor speed (p = 0.002), visual learning (p = 0.036) as well as working memory (p < 0.001), Nucleus basalis of Meynert volumes (p = 0.003) and burst suppression (p = 0.005). Conclusions: General but also PD- and surgery-specific factors were predictive of POD severity. These findings underline the multifaceted etiology of POD after DBS in PD. Valid predictive models must therefore consider general, PD- and surgery-specific factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".