MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6940019378 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6885192

Incidence and risk factors for postoperative delirium after head and neck cancer surgery: an updated meta-analysis

2024· other· en· W6940019378 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Observational studyHead and neck cancerDeliriumCochrane LibraryHead and neckCancerMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Postoperative delirium (POD) is a frequent neurologic dysfunction that often leads to more negative outcomes. Early identification of patients who are vulnerable to POD and early implementation of appropriate management strategies could decrease its occurrence and improve patient prognosis. Therefore, this meta-analysis comprehensively and quantitatively summarized the prevalence and related predictive factors of POD in head and neck cancer surgical patients. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for observational studies that reported the prevalence and risk factors for POD after head and neck cancer surgery and were published from their inception until December 31, 2022. Two reviewers independently selected qualified articles and extracted data. The qualities of related papers were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 were applied to analysis the data and conduct the meta-analysis. Results Sixteen observational studies with 3289 inpatients who underwent head and neck cancer surgery were included in this review. The occurrence of POD ranged from 4.2 to 36.9%, with a pooled incidence of 20% (95% CI 15–24%, I2 = 93.2%). The results of this pooled analysis demonstrated that the statistically significant risk factors for POD were increased age (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03–1.07, P < 0.001), age > 75 years (OR: 6.52, 95% CI: 3.07–13.87, P < 0.001), male sex (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.06–4.97, P = 0.04), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (OR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.44–3.33, P < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (OR: 2.73, 95% CI: 1.24–6.01, P = 0.01), and history of smoking (OR: 2.74, 95% CI: 1.13–6.65, P = 0.03). Conclusions POD frequently occurs after head and neck cancer surgery. Several independent predictors for POD were identified, which might contribute to identifying patients at high risk for POD and play a prominent role in preventing POD in patients following head and neck cancer surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.060
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→