MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411141562 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000005603

Psychological Effects of Explicit Recall under Sedation and after Surgery (PEERS): A Prospective Cohort Study on 2,500 Patients

2025· article· en· W4411141562 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jason Chui, Luis E. Mendoza Vasquez, Courtney Fleming, Arjun Patel, Zahra Salem Taboun, Madeline Green‐Holland, Lee-Anne Fochesato, Naudie Douglas, Homer Yang, John M. Murkin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationRecallProspective cohort studyIncidence (geometry)Depression (economics)CohortCohort studyOdds ratioPsychiatryAnesthesiaPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Explicit recall occurring during sedation/regional anesthesia is common but has long been assumed to have no sequelae. A prospective cohort study was conducted to determine the incidence of explicit recall experience under sedation/regional anesthesia, as well as to assess the recall experiences that are associated with psychological consequences. METHODS: The study prospectively recruited 2,500 adults who underwent elective total hip or knee arthroplasty under sedation/regional anesthesia from September 2021 to March 2024 at University Hospital in London, Ontario, Canada. The primary exposure was recall experience, assessed using the modified Brice questionnaire. The co-primary outcomes included probable depression (defined as a Patient Health Questionnaire score of 8 or higher) and suspected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms (defined as a Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for Civilians score of 13 or higher) at 6 weeks postoperatively. The association between specific recall experiences and the co-primary outcomes was evaluated by multivariable regression analysis. Additionally, the incidence and mental health burden related to the psychological effects of surgery in the entire cohort were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 2,138 patients were included in the final analysis. Explicit recall was reported by 475 participants (22.2%) but was not associated with the co-primary outcomes. Regarding surgery's overall impact, 61 participants (5%) developed new probable depression, 105 participants (5%) reported suspected PTSD, and 95 patients (4.4%) developed new suicidal ideation postoperatively. The authors estimated that 1 in 18 patients required new psychiatric consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit recall per se during sedation/regional anesthesia did not increase the odds of developing psychiatric illness. Surgery itself carries significant risks of triggering depression and PTSD that are severe enough to reach levels associated with suicidal ideation, requiring immediate mental care. This study reveals a significant, yet underappreciated, mental healthcare burden.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207