MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2412061737 · doi:10.1111/jgs.13906

A letter on the canadian emergency department study

2016· letter· en· W2412061737 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Güneş Arık, Gözde Şengül Ayçiçek, Özgür Kara, Fatih Sümer, Zekeriya Ülger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineDeliriumTelephone interviewCognitionEmergency departmentGerontologyCognitive impairmentPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: The study by Provencher et al.1 provided new insight into the risk of functional decline after minor trauma in older adults. However, even without a precipitating trauma, older adults are prone to functional decline over time. Without a control group with matching factors affecting functional status (e.g., age, sex, comorbidities, baseline activity of daily living scores), it is hard to back up the authors’ hypothesis and prove that the functional decline observed was the result of minor trauma and would not have happened otherwise. In addition, delirium is a common problem in emergency departments (EDs), with an estimated prevalence of 7% to 10%.2, 3 Although it is usually reversible, posttraumatic delirium can easily be misdiagnosed as cognitive impairment. It was unclear whether delirium was excluded before cognitive assessments were conducted on the individuals in the ED. Finally, the authors report that cognitive status was assessed using two different methods (Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and telephone interview) and that 31.9% of the participants in the MoCA group and 25.4% of the telephone interview group were below the cutoffs (P = .02). Consequently, individuals who were placed in the cognitive impairment group according to their MoCA score could have been in the normal cognitive function group if they had been evaluated using the telephone interview and vice versa. Because the analysis depends on comparing four groups of individuals according to their frailty and cognitive status, correct distribution of subjects is essential, and analyzing two types of cognitive assessment methods separately would have given more-accurate results. Conflict of Interest: The editor in chief has reviewed the conflict of interest checklist provided by the authors and has determined that the authors have no financial or any other kind of personal conflicts with this paper. Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally to this letter. Sponsor's Role: None.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0180.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→