From animal behavior to human perioperative neurocognitive disorders: translational boundaries of the gut-brain axis.

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Chi Zhu, Jionglin Wei
{"title":"From animal behavior to human perioperative neurocognitive disorders: translational boundaries of the gut-brain axis.","authors":"Chi Zhu, Jionglin Wei","doi":"10.1016/j.bbr.2026.116533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Perioperative neurocognitive disorders (PND), including postoperative delirium (POD), delayed neurocognitive recovery (DNR), and postoperative neurocognitive disorder, are common after surgery in older adults, and the gut-brain axis has been proposed as a contributing pathway. Most mechanistic support rests on rodent behavioral assays, yet these endpoints and human clinical diagnoses are routinely treated as interchangeable. This critical narrative review examines that translational boundary. PND is used here as a clinically consequential test case for a broader behavioral-neuroscience problem: how animal behavioral phenotypes, microbiome-associated signals, and intervention effects should be translated into human diagnostic constructs. A structured search identified and appraised the principal evidence rather than an exhaustive synthesis; no formal risk-of-bias or certainty-of-evidence assessment was performed. Evidence was separated into human perioperative studies reporting a neurocognitive outcome with either a measured gut-brain exposure or a gut-directed intervention; those reporting gut-brain change without a cognitive outcome; perioperative preclinical evidence; and indirect non-perioperative evidence. The retrieved human perioperative evidence spans observational cohorts across gastric, orthopedic, spinal and cardiac surgery, multi-omic and metabolomic cohorts, and randomized perioperative probiotic trials reporting lower rates of study-defined cognitive outcomes. It nonetheless remains heterogeneous and largely single-center, with modest event numbers, inconsistent sampling and assessment, and limited external validation. Mechanistic support still comes mainly from perioperative rodent models using water maze, fear-conditioning, recognition-memory, and delirium-like readouts, which measure narrow, species-specific capacities and are not diagnostic equivalents of POD, DNR, or postoperative neurocognitive disorder. Microbiome-mediated causation is unproven, and cross-species endpoint alignment remains a central route to improved translation.</p>","PeriodicalId":8823,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Brain Research","volume":" ","pages":"116533"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioural Brain Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2026.116533","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Perioperative neurocognitive disorders (PND), including postoperative delirium (POD), delayed neurocognitive recovery (DNR), and postoperative neurocognitive disorder, are common after surgery in older adults, and the gut-brain axis has been proposed as a contributing pathway. Most mechanistic support rests on rodent behavioral assays, yet these endpoints and human clinical diagnoses are routinely treated as interchangeable. This critical narrative review examines that translational boundary. PND is used here as a clinically consequential test case for a broader behavioral-neuroscience problem: how animal behavioral phenotypes, microbiome-associated signals, and intervention effects should be translated into human diagnostic constructs. A structured search identified and appraised the principal evidence rather than an exhaustive synthesis; no formal risk-of-bias or certainty-of-evidence assessment was performed. Evidence was separated into human perioperative studies reporting a neurocognitive outcome with either a measured gut-brain exposure or a gut-directed intervention; those reporting gut-brain change without a cognitive outcome; perioperative preclinical evidence; and indirect non-perioperative evidence. The retrieved human perioperative evidence spans observational cohorts across gastric, orthopedic, spinal and cardiac surgery, multi-omic and metabolomic cohorts, and randomized perioperative probiotic trials reporting lower rates of study-defined cognitive outcomes. It nonetheless remains heterogeneous and largely single-center, with modest event numbers, inconsistent sampling and assessment, and limited external validation. Mechanistic support still comes mainly from perioperative rodent models using water maze, fear-conditioning, recognition-memory, and delirium-like readouts, which measure narrow, species-specific capacities and are not diagnostic equivalents of POD, DNR, or postoperative neurocognitive disorder. Microbiome-mediated causation is unproven, and cross-species endpoint alignment remains a central route to improved translation.

从动物行为到人类围手术期神经认知障碍:肠-脑轴的翻译边界。
围手术期神经认知障碍(PND),包括术后谵妄(POD)、延迟神经认知恢复(DNR)和术后神经认知障碍,是老年人手术后常见的神经认知障碍,肠脑轴被认为是一种促进途径。大多数机械支持依赖于啮齿动物行为分析,然而这些终点和人类临床诊断通常被视为可互换的。这篇批判性的叙事评论考察了翻译的边界。PND在这里被用作一个更广泛的行为神经科学问题的临床结果测试案例:如何将动物行为表型,微生物组相关信号和干预效果转化为人类诊断结构。结构化检索识别和评估主要证据,而不是详尽的综合;未进行正式的偏倚风险或证据确定性评估。证据分为人类围手术期研究,报告了测量肠-脑暴露或肠道定向干预的神经认知结果;那些报告肠道-大脑变化但没有认知结果的人;围手术期临床前证据;以及非围手术期的间接证据。检索到的人类围手术期证据包括胃、骨科、脊柱和心脏手术、多组学和代谢组学队列的观察性队列,以及随机围手术期益生菌试验,这些试验报告了较低的研究定义的认知结局率。尽管如此,它仍然是异质性的,主要是单中心的,事件数量有限,抽样和评估不一致,外部验证有限。机械支持仍然主要来自围手术期啮齿类动物模型,使用水迷宫、恐惧调节、识别记忆和谵妄样读数,这些模型测量的是狭窄的、物种特异性的能力,而不是POD、DNR或术后神经认知障碍的诊断等效物。微生物组介导的因果关系尚未得到证实,跨物种端点比对仍然是改进翻译的核心途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Behavioural Brain Research
Behavioural Brain Research 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
383
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: Behavioural Brain Research is an international, interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the publication of articles in the field of behavioural neuroscience, broadly defined. Contributions from the entire range of disciplines that comprise the neurosciences, behavioural sciences or cognitive sciences are appropriate, as long as the goal is to delineate the neural mechanisms underlying behaviour. Thus, studies may range from neurophysiological, neuroanatomical, neurochemical or neuropharmacological analysis of brain-behaviour relations, including the use of molecular genetic or behavioural genetic approaches, to studies that involve the use of brain imaging techniques, to neuroethological studies. Reports of original research, of major methodological advances, or of novel conceptual approaches are all encouraged. The journal will also consider critical reviews on selected topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书