MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417448951 · doi:10.1111/jan.70456

Artificial Intelligence‐Based Delirium Prediction Model for Post‐Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4417448951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lu Zeng, Jinbo Zhang, Juan Zhang, Ming Tao, Jiamei Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumMEDLINEPublic healthNursing care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common complication following cardiac surgery and significantly affects patient prognosis and quality of life. Recently, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) has gained prominence in predicting and assessing the risk of postoperative delirium, showing considerable potential in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review summarises existing research on AI-based prediction models for post-cardiac surgery delirium and provides insights and recommendations for clinical practice and future research. METHODS: Following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, eight databases were searched: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Biomedical Literature Database, Virtual Information Platform, PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, and Embase. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were screened, and data were extracted on surgery type, delirium assessment tools, predictive factors, and AI-based prediction models. The search covered database inception through January 12, 2025. Two researchers independently conducted the literature review and data analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies from China, Canada, and Germany involving 11,702 participants were included. The reported incidence of postoperative delirium ranged from 5.56% to 34%. The most commonly used assessment tools were Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5, and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Key predictive factors included age, cardiopulmonary bypass time, cerebrovascular disease, and pain scores. AI-based prediction models were primarily developed using R (6/10, 60%) and Python (4/10, 40%). Model performance, as measured by the area under the curve, ranged from 0.544 to 0.92. Among these models, Random Forest (RF) was the most effective (5/10, 50%), followed by XGBoost (3/10, 30%) and Artificial Neural Networks (2/10, 20%). CONCLUSION: AI-based models show promise for predicting postoperative delirium in cardiac surgery patients. Future studies should prioritise integrating these models into clinical workflows, conducting rigorous multicenter external validation, and incorporating dynamic, time-varying perioperative variables to enhance generalizability and clinical utility. REPORTING METHOD: This review followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207