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 OpenAlexafffundabout
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

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical AnesthesiaSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207