MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Delirium Index, a Measure of the Severity of Delirium: New Findings on Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness

2004· article· en· W1492889971 on OpenAlex
Jane McCusker, Martín G. Cole, Nandini Dendukuri, Éric Belzile

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySt Mary's Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumMedicineReliability (semiconductor)Measure (data warehouse)Index (typography)ValidityPsychometricsPsychiatryClinical psychologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of an instrument for measuring the severity of delirium, the Delirium Index (DI). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study, with repeated patient assessments at multiple points in the hospital, at 8 weeks after discharge, and at 6 and 12 months after admission. SETTING: The medical services of a primary acute-care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Medical admissions aged 65 and older: 165 with delirium and dementia, 57 with delirium only, 55 with dementia only, and 41 with neither. MEASUREMENTS: Severity of delirium symptoms was measured using the DI. Delirium was diagnosed using the Confusion Assessment Method. Other measures included the Mini-Mental State Examination, Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly, Barthel Index (BI), premorbid instrumental activities of daily living, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Clinical Severity of Illness scale (CSI), and the Acute Physiology Score (APS). RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient of interrater reliability was 0.98. Two measures of fluctuation were significantly higher in patients with delirium than in those without delirium. At baseline, the DI was correlated with the BI, APS, and CSI in delirious patients with (correlation coefficient (r)=-0.43, 0.17, and 0.36, respectively) or without (r=-0.44, 0.39, 0.22, respectively) dementia. At 8 weeks, in delirious patients with and without dementia, internal responsiveness as measured by effect sizes was -0.60 and -0.74, respectively, and the standardized response mean for both groups was -0.64. Low to good levels of external responsiveness were found. CONCLUSION: The DI appears to be a reliable, valid, and responsive measure of the severity of delirium, in patients with delirium, with or without dementia.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it