Hydration and outcome in older patients admitted to hospital (The HOOP prospective cohort study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults are susceptible to dehydration due to age-related pathophysiological changes. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of hyperosmolar dehydration (HD) in hospitalised older adults, aged ≥65 years, admitted as an emergency and to assess the impact on short-term and long-term outcome. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was performed on older adult participants who were admitted acutely to a large U.K. teaching hospital. Data collected included the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), national early warning score (NEWS), Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) clinical frailty scale and Nutrition Risk Screening Tool (NRS) 2002. Admission bloods were used to measure serum osmolality. HD was defined as serum osmolality >300 mOsmol/kg. Participants who were still in hospital 48 h after admission were reviewed, and the same measurements were repeated. RESULTS: A total of 200 participants were recruited at admission to hospital, 37% of whom were dehydrated. Of those dehydrated, 62% were still dehydrated when reviewed at 48 h after admission. Overall, 7% of the participants died in hospital, 79% of whom were dehydrated at admission (P = 0.001). Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, CCI, NEWS, CSHA and NRS demonstrated that participants dehydrated at admission were 6 times more likely to die in hospital than those euhydrated, hazards ratio (HR) 6.04 (1.64-22.25); P = 0.007. CONCLUSIONS: HD is common in hospitalised older adults and is associated with poor outcome. Coordinated efforts are necessary to develop comprehensive hydration assessment tools to implement and monitor a real change in culture and attitude towards hydration in hospitalised older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".