ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Artificial Intelligence-Based Delirium Prediction Model for Post-Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Postoperative delirium in elderly orthopedic patients: a narrative review of prevention and multidisciplinary nursing interventions.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelirium 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.
objectiveThis 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.
methodsFollowing 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.
resultsTen 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%).
conclusionAI-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
methodThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.