Perioperative Neurocognitive Disorder in Individuals with a History of Traumatic Brain Injury: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postoperative neurocognitive disorder (PND) is a cognitive decline after general anesthesia and surgery, influenced by preexisting neurodegenerative conditions, stress, and inflammation. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is linked to a dysregulated stress response, neuroinflammation, and cognitive issues. Patients with TBI often need extracranial surgeries under general anesthesia (GA), which can increase stress, neuroinflammation, and neurodegenerative changes, raising PND risk. We will search databases like Ovid Medline and Embase for studies on cognitive function in patients with mild to moderate TBI who had extracranial surgeries under general anesthesia (GA). Screening and data extraction will be done manually and with AI-assisted tools (ASReview). Study quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Statistical analyses will include mean differences, odds ratios, and meta-regression, addressing heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias using Stata/SE. By meta-analyzing clinical studies, we aim to determine if TBI and GA/surgery interact to induce PND. We will use various data sources, subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression to assess factors like age, gender, and type of GA/surgery. This meta-analysis will enhance our understanding of PND risks, inform clinical practices, and highlight new research directions. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024510980).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".