Subsyndromal delirium in older people: a systematic review of frequency, risk factors, course and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency, risk factors, course and outcomes of subsyndromal delirium (SSD) in older people by systematically reviewing evidence on these topics. METHODS: Subsyndromal delirium was defined as the presence of one or more symptoms of delirium, not meeting criteria for delirium and not progressing to delirium. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Web of Science were searched for potentially relevant articles published from 1996 to June 2011. The bibliographies of relevant articles were searched for additional references. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. The validity of included studies was assessed according to Evidence-Based Medicine criteria. Information about the study population and methods, age, gender, proportion with dementia, diagnostic criteria, period and frequency of observation, and the topics above was systematically abstracted, tabulated and synthesized using standard meta-analysis techniques. RESULTS: The combined prevalence of SSD was 23% (95% CI, 9-42%); the combined incidence was 13% (95% CI, 6-23%). Risk factors were similar to those for delirium. Episodes lasted up to 133 days and were often recurrent. Outcomes were poor and often intermediate between those of older people with or without delirium. Of note, there was significant unexplained heterogeneity in the results of studies of prevalence, incidence and some risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: SSD in older people may be a frequent and clinically important condition that falls on a continuum between no symptoms and full delirium. Because of significant unexplained heterogeneity in the results of studies of SSD, however, the results of this review must be interpreted cautiously. Further research is necessary.
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 | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".