Delirium in Psychiatric Inpatients: A Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical and pharmacoepidemiological determinants of delirium in a psychiatric inpatient population. METHOD: A case-control study design was used. Potential cases and potential controls were identified using hospital discharge data. The clinical record of each subject was reviewed using a validated protocol to confirm case and control status. Subsequently, exposure data were recorded from clinical records. RESULTS: Subjects admitted to hospital with delirium tended to be older, to have pre-existing cognitive deficits, and to have diagnoses of substance use disorders. Subjects who developed delirium after their admission to hospital were older than control subjects, more likely to have a history of cognitive impairment, and were significantly more likely to be treated during the hospitalization with lithium or anticholinergic antiparkinsonian medications. Antipsychotic medication exposures were also associated with delirium, but only at standard or above-standard dosage levels. Antidepressant and sedative-hypnotic medications were not associated with delirium. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that using conservative dosages of antipsychotic medications and minimizing the use of anticholinergic medications for parkinsonian symptoms may help to prevent delirium in psychiatric inpatients. Anticonvulsant mood stabilizers may convey less delirium risk than lithium. Antidepressant medications and sedative-hypnotics were not important determinants of 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".