MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Individual delirium symptoms: Do they matter?*

2007· article· en· W2000298965 on OpenAlexaff
François Marquis, Sébastien Ouimet, Richard R. Riker, Mariève Cossette, Yoanna Skrobik

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumMedicineIntensive care unitIntensive carePsychomotor agitationChecklistPsychomotor learningComa (optics)Intensive care medicineEmergency medicineAnesthesiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of individual manifestations of delirium on outcome, describe them in critically ill adults, and validate nurses' bedside item assessments from the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Single 16-bed medical/surgical university hospital intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Six hundred consecutive patients admitted to the intensive care unit for >24 hrs. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were evaluated with the eight-item ICDSC throughout their intensive care unit stay. In all patients scoring positive on any ICDSC item, individual checklist items were tallied throughout the intensive care unit stay and assessed for impact on mortality. In addition, when the ICDSC score indicated delirium (> or = 4 of 8), the subsequent overall frequency of each item was also independently documented to describe delirious patient symptoms. ICDSC items were tested for discrimination between delirious and nondelirious patients. Throughout the study, the validity of bedside delirium assessments was assessed in 30 nurses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We were able to assess 537 patients. In nondelirious patients, psychomotor agitation by ICDSC assessment was associated with a higher risk of mortality after adjustment for Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, age, and the presence of coma. One hundred eight-nine patients (35.1%) developed delirium (i.e., ICDSC score > or = 4). On presentation (and throughout the intensive care unit stay), the most frequent features of delirium were inattention, disorientation, and psychomotor agitation. Each ICDSC item was highly discriminating between delirious vs. nondelirious patients. Correlation between gold standard adjudicators and nurses for the overall bedside evaluations of delirium were excellent (Pearson's correlation R = 0.924, p < .0005). Individual symptom evaluation by nurses varied: Alteration in level of consciousness was poorest (R = 0.681, p < .0005), and both disorientation and hallucinations evaluated best (R = 1.000). CONCLUSIONS: In nondelirious patients, agitation was associated with a higher risk of mortality. Each of the eight ICDSC items is highly discriminating for the diagnosis of delirium, suggesting that any screening or diagnostic scales should incorporate them. Quality assurance and educational efforts should, therefore, emphasize independent assessment of the individual features of delirium.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207