A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of the Feasibility of a Multicomponent Delirium Prevention Intervention Versus Usual Care in Acute Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delirium after acute stroke is a serious complication. Numerous studies support a benefit of multicomponent interventions in minimizing delirium-related complications in at-risk patients, but this has not been reported in acute stroke patients. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of conducting a randomized (delirium care) versus usual standardized stroke care (usual care) in reducing delirium in acute stroke. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study assessed the feasibility of (1) enrollment within the 48-hour window when delirium risk is greatest, (2) measuring cognitive function using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, (3) delivering interventions 7 days per week, and (4) determining delirium incidence in stroke-related cognitive dysfunction. METHODS: A 2-group randomized controlled trial was conducted. Patients admitted with ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes and 50 years or older, English speaking, and without delirium on admit were recruited, consented, and randomized to usual care or delirium care groups. RESULTS: Data from 125 subjects (delirium care, n = 59; usual care, n = 66) were analyzed. All Montreal Cognitive Assessment subscales were completed by 86% of subjects (delirium care, mean [SD], 18.14 [6.03]; usual care, mean [SD], 17.61 [6.29]). Subjects in the delirium care group received a mean of 6.10 therapeutic activities (range, 2-23) and daily medication review by a clinical pharmacist using anticholinergic drug calculations. Delirium incidence was 8% (10/125), 3 in the delirium care group and 7 in the usual care group. CONCLUSION: Findings support the feasibility of delivering a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention in acute stroke and warrants testing intervention effects on delirium outcomes and anticholinergic medication administration.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".