MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4409728783 · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.5635

Cognitive and Functional Decline Among Long-Term Care Residents

2025· article· en· W4409728783 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Ramtin Hakimjavadi, Christina Y Yin, Mary Scott, Robert Talarico, Tim Ramsay, Colleen Webber, Douglas G. Manuel, Aliza Moledina, Amy T. Hsu, Celeste Fung, Sharon Kaasalainen, Jackie Kierulf, Frank Molnar, Sandy Shamon, Benoît Robert, Paul E. Ronksley, Peter Tanuseputro, Kumanan Wilson, Daniel Kobewka

Notice bibliographique

RevueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Établissements canadiensUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityBruyèrePublic Health Agency of CanadaOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésMedicineLong-term careIncidence (geometry)CohortCognitive impairmentCohort studyGerontologyPopulationRetrospective cohort studyAcute careHealth careDemographyEmergency medicineCognitionEnvironmental healthPsychiatryInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Importance: Care decisions for long-term care (LTC) residents should be frailty-informed to maximize well-being and avoid burdensome treatments that do not align with patient wishes. Objective: To investigate the incidence and time spent living with severe impairment among LTC residents to help inform person-centered decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted among a population-based cohort of incident admissions to LTC facilities between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2018, determined using administrative health data in Ontario, Canada. Ontario residents aged 65 years or older who were admitted to LTC were included. Participants were followed up until death, discharge, or April 1, 2023. Data analysis was completed from October 17, 2023, to March 31, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were states of impairment that care partners identified as meaningful and some considered worse than death. The incidence of total care dependence, inability to make any decisions, inability to communicate, and incontinence of stool or urine was described. Survival after becoming impaired, characteristics of residents when they became impaired, and characteristics of those who survived for more than 1 year with each impairment were described. Residents at risk of a specific impairment (at-risk residents) were those who did not already have the impairment at admission. Results: A total of 120 238 residents admitted to LTC (mean [SD] age, 84.3 [7.7] years; 77 868 female [64.8%]) were included. By the end of follow-up, 22 018 of 109 830 at-risk residents (20.0%) had become permanently unable to make decisions, 9138 of 118 132 at-risk residents (7.7%) had become permanently unable to communicate, 15 711 of 116 848 at-risk residents (13.4%) had developed total care dependence, and 30 449 of 92 974 at-risk residents (32.8%) had developed incontinence of stool or urine. Median (IQR) survival time was shortest for residents who entered a state of total care dependence (45 [5-310] days) and longest for those with newly developed incontinence of stool or urine (356 [79-1031] days). Younger residents (eg, median [IQR] survival after developing total care dependence, 133 (17-735) days for ages <80 years vs 30 (4-217) days for ages ≥80 years) and those with dementia at admission (eg, median [IQR] survival after developing the inability to make decisions, 318 [40-1020] days with dementia vs 74 [4-474] days without dementia) had longer median survival after entering a state of severe impairment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, severe permanent impairment in function and cognition were common and often present near the end of life for LTC residents, but a minority of residents lived in these states for years. These results suggest that building shared understanding and open communication about the natural course of frailty trajectories for LTC residents may support resident-centered medical decision-making.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,143
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,693

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,403
Écart entre enseignants0,364 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2025
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJAMA Network OpenMême sujetGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesTravaux en français237 207