Post-operative Functional Disability in Unrecognized Cognitive Impairment (POF) Study: An Observational Cohort Study in Patients Undergoing Non-cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying individuals with unrecognized cognitive impairment may facilitate informed decision-making about the benefits and risks of undergoing surgery in these patients, and how underlying cognitive impairment relates to functional ability. Using simple screening tools in older surgical patients at baseline, post-operative 30-, 90-, and 180-days, we determine the prevalence of unrecognized cognitive impairment and its association with postoperative functional ability. Across all four timepoints, we found a prevalence of unrecognized cognitive impairment in 24.5% of participants (n = 53). A repeated-measures ANOVA showed that there was no significant difference in patients with or without cognitive impairment between baseline and 30-days for IADL, F (1, 43) = 0.389, p = 0.536 or for WHODAS, F (1,45) = 1.62, p = 0.210. We found that simple screening tools for cognitive impairment such as single cognitive question or AD8 can identify potential cognitive impairment in older surgical patients. Follow-up for formal diagnosis is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".