The 6‐ and 12‐Month Outcomes of Older Medical Inpatients Who Recover from Subsyndromal Delirium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the 6- and 12-month outcomes of patients who recovered from subsyndromal delirium (SSD) by 8 weeks with the outcomes of patients who did not recover or did not have an index episode. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data collected for a cohort study of the prognosis of delirium. SETTING: University-affiliated primary acute care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Older medical inpatients with prevalent, incident, or no SSD were classified into three mutually exclusive groups at 8 weeks (SSD-recovered, SSD-not recovered, no SSD) and followed up at 6 and 12 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary hierarchical composite outcome was death, institutionalization, or cognitive or functional decline at 6 and 12 months. In secondary analyses, components of the primary outcome were examined separately. RESULTS: Of the 129 patients assessed at 8 weeks, 51, 47, and 31 met criteria for SSD-recovered, SSD-not recovered and no SSD, respectively. At 6 and 12 months, the primary and secondary outcomes of the SSD-recovered group were better than the outcomes of the SSD-not recovered group and, for the most part, intermediate between the outcomes of the SSD-not recovered and no SSD groups. CONCLUSION: Recovery from SSD appears to predict better longer-term outcomes than no recovery. Efforts to identify and treat SSD in older medical inpatients may improve outcomes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".