Abstract 4146361: Patients demonstrate hesitancy to participate in cognitive assessments in an international coronary bypass surgery graft (CABG) surgery trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is the most common cardiac surgery in adults, yet it is associated with a range of complications including stroke, cognitive impairment, and dementia. Despite the critical importance of cognitive outcomes, cognition remains understudied in CABG surgery trials, and recruitment for cardiac-related cognitive studies faces substantial challenges. Objective: Identify barriers to recruitment in a cognitive auxiliary study in the international Randomized Comparison Of The Clinical Outcome Of Single Vs Multiple Arterial Grafts (ROMA) trial. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with research staff (n=12) involved in the ROMA trial to explore themes related to recruitment barriers into ROMA:Cognition. The average interview length was approximately 25 minutes. Qualitative data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach, and inter-rater reliability was assessed with Cohen's kappa score based on the five most frequently applied codes. Results: Twelve participants were recruited, with a mean age of 48 years. Of these, 90% were female, 60% were from North America, and 30% were from Europe. Key themes identified included: (1) misconceptions of cognition as equivalent to psychiatric disorders, (2) gaps in understanding the importance of measuring cognition for a cardiac-related study, (3) distrust in international data sharing practices, and (4) stigma and apprehension surrounding cognitive decline and mental health issues (Table 1). Conclusion: Educational interventions are crucial to improve patient understanding of the importance of cognitive assessments in the context of cardiac surgery. Addressing misconceptions and reducing stigma related to cognitive testing can enhance patient recruitment and engagement in cognitive auxiliary studies. Emphasizing the brain-heart connection and distinguishing cognitive assessment from psychiatric evaluation are essential steps to ensure comprehensive postoperative care and improve outcomes for CABG 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 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 | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".