Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There are two contradictory views on the prognosis of delirium in older hospital patients. On one hand, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), describes delirium as a transient cognitive disorder, the majority of affected individuals having a full recovery. On the other hand, longitudinal studies of delirium in this population report that the outcomes are poor. This review proposes to reconcile these two contradictory views. RECENT FINDINGS: In older hospital patients, delirium appears to persist in 44.7% of patients at discharge and in 32.8, 25.6 and 21% of patients at 1, 3 and 6 months, respectively. The outcomes (cognition, function, nursing home placement, mortality) of patients with persistent delirium are consistently worse than the outcomes of patients who recover from delirium. SUMMARY: The majority of older hospital patients with delirium may recover but the persistence of delirium in a substantial minority of patients may account, in large part, for the poor outcomes of delirium in this population. This proposal has potentially important implications for clinical practice and research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".