MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The utility of remote cognitive screening tools in identifying cognitive impairment in older surgical patients: An observational cohort study

2024· article· en· W4400919952 on OpenAlex
Ellene Yan, Nina Butris, Yasmin Alhamdah, Paras Kapoor, Leif Erik Lovblom, Sazzadul Islam, Aparna Saripella, Jean Wong, David F. Tang‐Wai, Linda Mah, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Maria Carmela Tartaglia, David He, Frances Chung

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Anesthesia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalMount Sinai HospitalHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western HospitalWomen's College Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaTelephone interviewCognitive impairmentObservational studyCognitionCohortCohort studyPhysical therapyDiseasePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of suspected cognitive impairment using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cognitive question, Ascertain Dementia Eight-item Questionnaire (AD8), Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M), and Telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA), the agreement between each tool beyond chance, and the risk factors associated with a positive screen. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective study. SETTING: Remote preoperative assessments. PATIENTS: 307 non-cardiac surgical patients aged ≥65 years. MEASUREMENTS: Prevalence, Cohen's kappa (κ). MAIN RESULTS: The T-MoCA detected the highest prevalence of suspected cognitive impairment (28%), followed by the AD8 (17%), CDC cognitive question (9%), and TICS-M (6%). The four screening tools showed poor agreement beyond chance with one another, with the CDC cognitive question and AD8 approaching the threshold for weak agreement (κ = 0.39). Depression was associated with screening positive on the CDC cognitive question (OR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.04, 7.68). Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) (OR: 3.10; 95% CI: 1.26, 7.71) and functional disability (OR: 3.74; 95% CI: 1.34, 11.11) were associated with a positive AD8 screen. Older age (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.01, 2.41), male sex (OR: 3.08; 95% CI: 1.09, 9.40), and higher pain level (OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.47) were associated with a positive TICS-M screen. Similarly, older age (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.73), male sex (OR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.09, 3.83), and higher pain level (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.30) were associated with a positive T-MoCA screen. CONCLUSIONS: The CDC cognitive question, AD8, TICS-M, and T-MoCA were easily implemented during preoperative assessment among older surgical patients. OSA, functional disability, and depression were associated with complaints on the CDC cognitive question and AD8. Older age, male sex, and higher pain level were associated with screening positive on the TICS-M and T-MoCA. Early remote cognitive screening may enhance risk stratification of vulnerable patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.288 · 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