ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Biomarkers of perioperative neurocognitive disorders after cardiac surgery: from mechanistic insights to clinical translation.
Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Perioperative neurocognitive disorders (PND) after cardiac surgery are common complications that adversely affect postoperative recovery, functional independence, and long-term prognosis. Their pathogenesis is multifactorial, involving cerebral hypoperfusion, microembolism, CPB-related systemic inflammation, BBB disruption, oxidative stress, metabolic dysregulation, neuroimmune imbalance, and host vulnerability. This review summarizes current evidence on major biomarker categories, including neuronal and axonal injury, glial activation, BBB dysfunction, systemic and neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, neurotrophic signaling, metabolic disturbance, extracellular vesicles (EVs), microRNAs, gut-brain axis-related signals, and clinical vulnerability factors. Neurofilament light chain (NfL), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and several inflammatory markers have the most direct clinical evidence, although none has shown sufficient standalone performance for routine use. EVs, microRNAs, metabolomic profiles, pro-resolving mediators, autonomic-neuroimmune indicators, and microbiome-derived signals remain exploratory. However, most candidate biomarkers show limited discriminatory power when used alone, and few have demonstrated incremental value beyond established perioperative risk factors, including age, frailty, preoperative cognitive impairment, hemodynamic instability, and CPB-related variables. Biomarker-informed intervention studies remain predominantly preclinical or hypothesis-generating. Future progress will require standardized outcome definitions, harmonized sampling strategies, multicenter validation, and temporally structured multimodal models tailored to specific clinical purposes, including preoperative risk stratification, early postoperative brain injury monitoring, prognostic assessment, and treatment-response evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.