Validity of predischarge measures for predicting time to harm in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concern is often expressed about the ability of persons with cognitive impairment to manage safely after discharge home from hospital. Measures validated for predicting safety are required. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether two predischarge functional measures were valid for predicting time to incident of harm after discharge. METHOD: Participants (n = 47) were recruited from an inpatient rehabilitation unit. The Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) and Cognitive Performance Test (CPT) were administered in hospital. Incident-of-harm outcome was measured by caregiver telephone questionnaire monthly for 6 months. FINDINGS: Compared with all independent variables, AMPS Process scale was the best single predictor of time to incident of harm (p = .01). CPT had a high specificity (91%) for identifying persons who did not have harm. IMPLICATIONS: Both AMPS and CPT demonstrated predictive validity for harm outcome over less predictive variables, such as comorbidities and activities-of-daily-living burden of care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".