Is Cognitive Function a Concern in Independent Elderly Adults Discharged Home from the Emergency Department in Canada After a Minor Injury?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the cognitive functioning of independent community-dwelling elderly adults visiting the emergency department (ED) for minor injuries and at 3- and 6-month follow-up assessments and to document the occurrence of falls, return to the ED, and hospital visits over time according to cognitive level. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Three Canadian EDs. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 65 and older who were independent in basic activities of daily living, visiting the ED for minor injuries, and discharged home within 48 hours (N = 320). MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). New falls involving pain and ED or hospital visits were documented at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: At baseline, 62.4% of participants scored below the recommended cutoff of 26 on the MoCA, suggesting cognitive dysfunction, and 22.9% scored below a more-stringent cutoff of 21. MoCA scores had improved significantly at 3 and 6 months. Items showing the most improvement were delayed recall and verbal fluency. Persons with MoCA scores of less than 21 reported significantly more new falls and hospital visits 3 to 6 months after injury. CONCLUSION: Cognition is not optimal in many community-dwelling elderly adults visiting an ED for a minor injury, which may affect their capacity to comprehend, recall, and adhere to medical recommendations after their injury and put them at risk of further negative health events such as falls.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".