Abstract 4146283: Infrequent Cognitive Assessments in CABG Trials (from 2005-2023) Highlight Need for Improved Strategies for Cognitive Screening post-coronary bypass grafting (CABG) surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The incidence of cognitive decline following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is well-documented, significantly impacting patient morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. We conducted a systematic review that examines cognitive outcomes in CABG randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to identify which cognitive assessments were used, their administration frequency, attrition rates, and their effectiveness in detecting perioperative cognitive changes in control groups. Methods: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO for CABG RCTs that included cognitive assessments, from January 2005 to December 2023. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the frequency, domains, and attrition rates of each cognitive task. For tasks assessed both pre- and post-operatively in at least three RCTs, control group scores and standard deviations were reported. Results: Out of 3337 screened studies, 2163 were CABG RCTs, and only 69 (3.2%) included cognitive evaluations (Figure 1). These trials involved 15,839 subjects (79% male, mean age 64.4, median follow-up time 90 days) and used 145 unique cognitive tasks. The Trailmaking Test Part B (40/69; 58.0%) and Part A (38/69; 55.0%) were the most frequently used. Only 7 tasks had means and standard deviations reported before and after surgery in more than three RCTs, and none detected significant pre- to post-operative changes. Attrition rates averaged 19.3%, with a wide range from 0% to 62%. Figure 2 demonstrates the decline in cognitive assessments in CABG trials over the years, with a sharp decline after 2014. Trials that assessed cogntion after 2014 tended to favor screening tasks (MMSE/MoCA) alone. Conclusion: Cognitive assessments are infrequent in CABG trials, and existing tests fail to consistently detect cognitive changes. To effectively evaluate and address cognitive impact after CABG, new assessment strategies that are resilient to attrition and practical for use in diverse trial settings are needed.
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 | 0.051 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".