Development of Delirium: A Prospective Cohort Study in a Community Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research on risk of delirium in acute hospital settings identified mainly patient variables (e.g., age) that are not amenable to intervention. The purpose of this study was to develop a model for new delirium in hospitalized older patients that included process of care and social variables. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was undertaken in a community hospital in Ontario, Canada. Research participants included 156 hospitalized patients age 65+ years and without delirium on admission who were admitted to a medical or surgical unit. The measures included daily appraisal of delirium using a standardized and validated tool, and assessment of patient, process of care, and social variables. RESULTS: Delirium developed in 28 of the 156 patients (17.9%). Older age and cognitive impairment were significant patient variables. Significant process of care variables included a high number of medications administered during hospitalization, surgery, a high number of procedures during early hospitalization (e.g., x-rays, blood tests), and intensive care treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one older patient in five developed delirium after admission to a medical or surgical unit. Risks not easily amenable to intervention included age, cognitive dysfunction, surgery, and intensive care requirements. Risk factors that are potentially modifiable included number of medications and number of procedures. Future research might focus on the efficacy of such intervention to reduce new-onset delirium in acute hospital settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".