MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294615640 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009212

Comparison of cognitive and neuropsychiatric profiles in hospitalised elderly medical patients with delirium, dementia and comorbid delirium–dementia

2016· article· en· W2294615640 on OpenAlexaff
Maeve Leonard, Shane McInerney, John McFarland, Candice E. Condon, Fahad Awan, Margaret O’Connor, Paul Reynolds, Anna Maria Meaney, Dimitrios Adamis, Colum Dunne, Walter Cullen, Paula T. Trzepacz, David Meagher

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersHealth Research Board
KeywordsDeliriumMedicineDementiaPsychiatryCognitionComorbidityNeurologyGeriatricsGeriatric psychiatryGerontologyDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Differentiation of delirium and dementia is a key diagnostic challenge but there has been limited study of features that distinguish these conditions. We examined neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological symptoms in elderly medical inpatients to identify features that distinguish major neurocognitive disorders. SETTING: University teaching hospital in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES: 176 consecutive elderly medical inpatients (mean age 80.6 ± 7.0 years (range 60-96); 85 males (48%)) referred to a psychiatry for later life consultation-liaison service with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV delirium, dementia, comorbid delirium-dementia and cognitively intact controls. Participants were assessed cross-sectionally with comparison of scores (including individual items) for the Revised Delirium Rating Scale (DRS-R98), Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI-Q). RESULTS: The frequency of neurocognitive diagnoses was delirium (n=50), dementia (n=32), comorbid delirium-dementia (n=62) and cognitively intact patients (n=32). Both delirium and comorbid delirium-dementia groups scored higher than the dementia group for DRS-R98 and CTD total scores, but all three neurocognitively impaired groups scored similarly in respect of total NPI-Q scores. For individual DRS-R98 items, delirium groups were distinguished from dementia groups by a range of non-cognitive symptoms, but only for impaired attention of the cognitive items. For the CTD, attention (p=0.002) and vigilance (p=0.01) distinguished between delirium and dementia. No individual CTD item distinguished between comorbid delirium-dementia and delirium. For the NPI-Q, there were no differences between the three neurocognitively impaired groups for any individual item severity. CONCLUSIONS: The neurocognitive profile of delirium is similar with or without comorbid dementia and differs from dementia without delirium. Simple tests of attention and vigilance can help to distinguish between delirium and other presentations. The NPI-Q does not readily distinguish between neuropsychiatric disturbances in delirium versus dementia. Cases of suspected behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia should be carefully assessed for possible delirium.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations40
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207