The utility of the clock drawing test in detection of delirium in elderly hospitalised patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Delirium is common neuropsychiatric condition among elderly inpatients. The clock drawing test (CDT) has been used widely as bedside screening tool in assessing cognitive impairment in elderly people. Previous studies which evaluate its usefulness in delirium reported conflicting results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of CDT to detect delirium in elderly medical patients. METHOD: Prospective, observational, longitudinal study. All acute medical admissions 70 years of age and above were approached within 72 hours of admission for recruitment. Patients eligible for inclusion were assessed four times, twice weekly during admission. Assessment included Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), Delirium Rating Scale (DRS-98R), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE) II, and CDT. Data was analysed using a linear mixed effect model. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-three assessments with the CDT were performed on 200 subjects (50% male, mean age 81.13; standard deviation: 6.45). The overall rate of delirium (CAM+) during hospitalisation was 23%. There was a significant negative correlation between the CDT and DRS-R98 scores (Pearson correlation r = -0.618, p < 0.001), CDT and CAM (Spearman's rho = -0.402, p < 0.001) and CDT and total MoCA score (Pearson's r = 0.767, p < 0.001). However, when the data were analysed longitudinally controlling for all the factors, we found that cognitive function and age were significant factors associated with CDT scores (p < .0001): neither the presence nor the severity of delirium had an additional significant effect on the CDT. CONCLUSION: CDT score reflects cognitive impairment, independently of the presence or severity of delirium. The CDT is not a suitable test for delirium in hospitalised elderly patients.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".