Evaluating the predictive accuracy of cognitive screeners BAMCOG and MoCA in identifying postoperative delirium risk in aortic valve replacement patients: A cohort study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postoperative delirium (POD) and postoperative encephalopathy (POE) are common complications in older adults undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), yet the predictive accuracy of cognitive screening tools remains uncertain. In this prospective cohort study, 50 patients aged 65 years and older scheduled for AVR between January and October 2022 underwent preoperative assessment with the Brain Aging Monitor Cognitive Assessment (BAMCOG) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Postoperatively, POD was evaluated with the Delirium Observation Screening (DOS) scale and POE with electroencephalography (EEG). BAMCOG and MoCA showed poor accuracy in predicting POE, with AUROC values of 0.67 and 0.59 respectively, but BAMCOG demonstrated good accuracy for POD prediction (AUROC 0.85) compared with MoCA (AUROC 0.53). Higher BAMCOG scores were significantly associated with reduced POD incidence, with each 10% increase in score lowering the risk by 16%. These findings suggest that BAMCOG may be a valuable preoperative screening tool for POD, though larger studies are needed to confirm its clinical utility and establish optimal cutoff values.
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.
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 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it