AI-Supported, Integrative Prediction of Postoperative Delirium: Protocol for the CONFUSED Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Postoperative delirium (POD) is a frequent and serious complication in older surgical patients, characterized by acute cognitive dysfunction and fluctuating levels of consciousness. POD is associated with prolonged hospitalization, long-term cognitive decline, reduced quality of life, and increased mortality. Despite its clinical relevance, the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms remain poorly understood, and reliable biomarkers for early prediction and prevention are lacking. Objective The CONFUSED study aims to identify molecular and clinical predictors of POD by integrating clinical data with proteomic, transcriptomic, and epigenetic analyses. The primary objective is to develop predictive models for POD using multimodal data. Secondary objectives include the identification of delirium-associated genes, proteins, and epigenetic signatures, as well as the exploration of patient subgroups at increased risk for POD. Methods CONFUSED is a prospective observational cohort study conducted at a German university hospital. Adult patients undergoing major surgery under general anesthesia will be enrolled until 100 cases of POD have been observed, which is expected to require a total sample size of approximately 200 to 300 patients. Blood samples are collected at 4 predefined time points: before premedication, immediately after surgery, and on postoperative days 2 and 5. Samples undergo comprehensive proteomic profiling, transcriptomic analysis using RNA microarrays, DNA methylation analysis, and genotyping of selected polymorphisms. Clinical data, including demographics, comorbidities, perioperative variables, medications, and delirium assessments using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and CAM for the intensive care unit, are systematically recorded. Statistical analyses include univariate and multivariate methods, as well as machine learning approaches such as random forests and support vector machines, to identify relevant biomarkers and develop predictive models. The study protocol follows STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) and TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) guidelines and was approved by the responsible ethics committees. Results The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00033854) on March 18, 2024. Recruitment started in January 2024 and is ongoing at the time of manuscript submission. As of now, 135 patients have been enrolled. Sample collection and laboratory analyses are ongoing. Data analysis began in January 2026, with first results anticipated in July 2026. Final data lock is anticipated after the completion of recruitment. Conclusions By integrating multimodal molecular data with clinical parameters and applying advanced machine learning techniques, the CONFUSED study aims to improve the prediction and understanding of POD. The results are expected to support the development of personalized preventive strategies and contribute to improved perioperative care for patients at risk of POD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".