An Exploratory Study of Diagnostic Criteria for Delirium in Older Medical Inpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The poor prognosis of delirium in older medical inpatients has generated controversy about the diagnostic criteria for delirium in this population. The goal of the present study was to explore the presenting symptoms of delirium among older medical inpatients who did or did not recover from delirium. Patients 65 years or older admitted from the emergency department to medical services were screened with the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). Patients with delirium were assessed at enrollment, several times during the first week, then weekly for 4 weeks using the Delirium Index (DI). Measures at baseline included demographics, dementia and severity of physical illness. Recovery was defined as a decline of three points or more on the DI and a final DI score of less than 5 or 4 points in patients with or without dementia, respectively. Of 290 patients who met DSM-IV criteria for delirium, 65 recovered and 225 did not. Three symptoms (orientation to person, hyperactivity, and inattention) were associated with recovery from delirium in older medical inpatients. These results suggest it may be necessary to place increased emphasis on these presenting symptoms when diagnosing delirium in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".