MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414737170 · doi:10.1186/s40001-025-02949-x

The influencing factors of cognitive dysfunction in patients after cardiac surgery and the construction of a nomogram prediction model

2025· article· en· W4414737170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ani Zhao, Yanchun Peng, Lingyu Lin, Liangwan Chen, Yanjuan Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean journal of medical research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomogramCardiac surgeryCognitionHemoglobinPostoperative cognitive dysfunctionCognitive impairmentMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early detection of cognitive dysfunction (POCD) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery may help improve the prognosis and quality of life. Identifying risk factors and clinically relevant factors is critical for prevention and treatment. METHODS: This study retrospectively selected 305 patients admitted to the cardiac surgery Department of Union Hospital Affiliated with Fujian Medical University from January 2024 to July 2024 as the study objects. The cognitive function of the patients was assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MOCA) before and on the 6th day after surgery, and the patients were divided into a cognitive dysfunction group and a non-cognitive dysfunction group. Logistic regression was used to analyze the risk factors of POCD in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. R software was used to construct the nomogram model of POCD in heart patients. RESULTS: = 8.73, P = 0.36 > 0.05) showed good consistency. The area under the ROC curve is 0.80, with a good differentiation and decision curve. CONCLUSIONS: Age, white blood cell count, lymphocyte, and hemoglobin are independent risk factors for POCD on day 6 of cardiac surgery. The nomogram prediction model constructed in this study has good predictive ability.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean journal of medical researchSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207