Artificial Intelligence‐Based Delirium Prediction Model for Post‐Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".