MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2244304146 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511527081.049

Delirium

2003· book-chapter· en· W2244304146 on OpenAlexaff
Peter G. Lawlor

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2003
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Delirium is a common and frequently distressing neuropsychiatric complication in cancer patients. It has been defined as a transient global disorder of cognition and attention. These features are highlighted in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition; DSM–IV) core diagnostic criteria for delirium (Table 48.1), which also includes perceptual disturbance, acuity of onset (hours to days), fluctuation in clinical features, and the presence of an underlying cause, such as a general medical condition, substance induced, multiple etiologies, or unknown etiology. Delirium is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospital stay, and especially in the elderly, an increased requirement for institutional care. Epidemiological aspects Delirium occurrence rates in the range of 8–88% have been reported in hospitalized cancer patients. This wide range likely represents differences in diagnostic criteria, and populations selected on the basis of admission to different settings (for example, early versus advanced disease) or referral to different consult services such as psychiatry or neurology. Prospective studies have reported delirium in 40% of advanced cancer patients on hospital admission and in almost 90% of these patients in the last hours or days prior to death. Despite its remarkable frequency as a terminal event, delirium reversal has been reported in approximately 50% of episodes. Clinical features Delirium is a syndrome with protean manifestations. Perceptual disturbance, one of the potential core criteria, includes misperceptions, illusions, and hallucinations. Hallucinations are most commonly visual but tactile and auditory types can also occur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.026

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→