MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412046085 · doi:10.1186/s12877-025-06096-0

Risk of dementia in older patients with different anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

2025· review· en· W4412046085 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yan Wang, Qian Fang, Lin Lü, Dongjun Bi, Tao-Hsin Tung

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaMeta-analysisCohort studyCohortRehabilitationSystematic reviewMEDLINEPhysical therapyGerontologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia has been hypothesized to influence dementia risk due to its potential neurotoxic effects, especially in older patients. The administration of anesthetic agents may exacerbate underlying neurodegenerative processes. This study aimed to assess the risk of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) in older patients who underwent general or regional anesthesia. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the associations between different types of anesthesia and the risk of dementia, AD, and ADRD in older patients. We searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases from inception to 13, February 2025. Two authors independently selected eligible studies, used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of included studies, and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved through discussions involving a third author. RESULTS: Eight population-based cohort studies were included and considered as high quality. Our findings indicated that the type of anesthesia (general or regional) did not increase the risk of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–2.00), AD (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55–1.25),ADRD (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84–1.08), or composite outcome dementia (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.90–1.52). We also found no increase in the risk of dementia (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.30–5.94), AD (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55–1.25, or composite outcome dementia (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.72–1.56) among older patients underwent general anesthesia. In the stratified analysis, we found differences between male and female in terms of increased risk of dementia, AD or ADRD (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82–0.96).We also found no increase in dementia, AD or ADRD among older patients exposed to different anesthesia protocols between Asia and North America. CONCLUSIONS: The available limited, low-quality evidence does not indicate an increased risk of dementia in older patients exposed to general or regional anesthesia. However, it is necessary to acknowledge that anesthesia may influence cognitive function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.036
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207