↓ Skip to main content

Postoperative Delirium, Learning, and Anesthetic Neurotoxicity: Some Perspectives and Directions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Postoperative Delirium, Learning, and Anesthetic Neurotoxicity: Some Perspectives and Directions
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00177
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. Alan C. Mutch, Renée M. El-Gabalawy, M. Ruth Graham

Abstract

Evidence of anesthetic neurotoxicity is unequivocal when studied in animal models. These findings have translated poorly to the clinical domain when equated to postoperative delirium (POD) in adults and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) in either children or the elderly. In this perspective, we examine various reasons for the differences between animal modeling of neurotoxicity and the clinical situation of POD and POCD and make suggestions as to potential directions for ongoing research. We hypothesize that the animal anesthetic neurotoxicity models are limited, in part, due to failed scaling correction of physiological time. We posit that important insights into POCD in children and adults may be gleaned from studies in adults examining alterations in perioperative management designed to limit POD. In this way, POD may be more useful as the proxy for POCD rather than neuronal dropout or behavioral abnormalities that have been used in animal models but which may not be proxies for the human condition. We argue that it is time to move beyond animal models of neurotoxicity to directly examine these problems in well-conducted clinical trials with comprehensive preoperative neuropsychometric and psychiatric testing, high fidelity intraoperative monitoring of physiological parameters during the anesthetic course and postoperative assessment of subthreshold and full classification of POD. In this manner, we can "model ourselves" to better understand these important and poorly understood conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Professor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 32%
Neuroscience 8 15%
Engineering 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,379,536
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#5,810
of 11,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,766
of 332,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#123
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.