Physical, cognitive, and mental function in patients with pre- and post cardiac surgery: A pre–post comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aims and Background: Cardiac surgery is a lifesaving procedure, however, it is also associated with decline in physical, cognitive, and mental function postsurgery. These impairments are found to be associated not just postsurgery but are also evident before surgery. Hence, this study aims to assess the changes in physical, cognitive, and mental function in patients before and after cardiac surgery. Methods: This was a pre–post observational study including 47 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Barthel Index, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were used to evaluate physical, cognitive, and mental function, respectively, on 1 day before surgery, postoperative day 3 (POD 3), and POD 7. Results: About 68.1% of the patients were functionally independent 1 day before surgery which significantly reduced to 6.4% postsurgery. About 70% of patients already had moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment 1 day before surgery, which increased to 70.2% severe impairment on POD 3. About 40.4% of the patients had moderate anxiety 1 day before surgery that increased to 57.4% postsurgery, while 46.8% of patients had no symptoms of depression 1 day before surgery, but almost 55.3% of the patients had moderate depression postsurgery. Conclusion: There was a decline in physical, cognitive as well as mental function both before and after the surgery. The majority of the patients already experienced a decline in physical, cognitive, and mental function before surgery, thereby highlighting the importance of taking detailed preoperative assessment to have the complete picture of the patient’s condition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".