Factors associated with prolonged delirium: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delirium frequently accompanies acute illness. With treatment of the illness, some individuals recover from delirium while for others the symptoms persist. It is not understood why some individuals improve but others do not. The purpose of this paper is to review systematically what is known about the factors associated with the persistence of delirium. METHODS: A medical literature search was conducted using several bibliographic databases, supplemented by manual searches of the references. English or French studies were included if they compared two groups of delirious individuals in delirium duration or persistence up to six months after the onset of delirium, diagnosed prospectively with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria (or a scale derived and validated against the DSM). Information was collected on the association between possible non-therapeutic prognostic variables and delirium persistence. RESULTS: Twenty-one observational studies were included, in various settings (e.g. mixed medical-surgical, medical or geriatric, surgical, psychiatric, cancer or palliative care units). Variables assessed included patient characteristics (e.g. age, dementia, medical comorbidity, functional status), delirium characteristics (e.g. presence of hypoactive symptoms, delirium severity) and illness characteristics (e.g. severity of illness, and underlying acute illness). Overall, studies suggested that delirium is often persistent at discharge or beyond. Persistence was associated with dementia, increasing numbers of medical conditions, increasing severity of delirium, hypoactive symptoms and hypoxic illnesses. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that some factors may identify those at risk for persistent delirium; however, more research is needed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".