Neurocognitive Outcomes After Extracranial Surgery and General Anesthesia in Patients with a History of Mild-to-Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury: Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accelerated neurocognitive decline associated with surgeries under general anesthesia (GA), a phenomenon referred to as postoperative neurocognitive disorder (PND), is a significant public health concern. It not only poses inherent risks but may also contribute to the development of other neurodegenerative disorders. We systematically searched five databases for studies examining cognitive function in patients with mild-to-moderate TBI with (participant) or without (control) subsequent extracranial surgeries/GA. A random effects model was applied to calculate mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five outcomes were analyzed post hoc: trail-making tests A and B (TMT-A/B), Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOSE), and length of stay (LOS) in intensive care units (ICUs) and hospitals. Five studies met the criteria for our meta-analysis. Patients with a history of mild-to-moderate TBI who underwent extracranial surgeries/GA exhibited worse outcomes in TMT-A [MD = 2.04; CI 0.38–3.70; p = 0.016] and TMT-B [MD = 16.59; CI 9.58–23.60; p < 0.001]. Differences in the ICU and hospital LOS and GOSE between the study groups were insignificant. Our results suggest that extracranial surgeries/GA may worsen neurocognitive outcomes without affecting functional recovery in mild-to-moderate TBI patients. Given the limited number of studies identified and the high incidence of TBI, more research on PND in TBI patients is warranted.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| 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".