The Clock-in-the-Box, a brief cognitive screen, is associated with failure to return home in an elderly hospitalized sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Cognitive screening upon hospital admission can provide important information about the patient’s ability to process information during the inpatient stay. The Clock-in-the-Box (CIB) is a rapidly administered cognitive screening measure which has been previously validated with cognitive screening and neuropsychological assessments. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the predictive validity of the CIB for discharge location among a sample of older medical inpatients. Patients and methods: Hospitalized Veterans (N=218), aged 55 years and older, were recruited on the day after admission after they gave their consent. These participants completed the CIB, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and self-report measures of daily functioning. Using logistic regression models, the bivariable and multivariable impact of the cognitive screening and functional assessments were examined for their ability to predict whether the participants did not return home after hospitalization (eg, admission to subacute rehabilitation facilities or nursing facilities). Results: The participants were older (mean 71.5±9.5 years) and predominantly male (92.7%). The CIB score was independently associated with discharge to locations other than home (odds ratio =0.72, 95% confidence interval =0.60–0.87, P =0.001) and remained associated after adjusting for demographics, prehospitalization functional abilities, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (adjusted odds ratio =0.55, 95% confidence interval =0.36–0.83, P =0.004). Conclusion: The current evidence, combined with its brevity and ease of use, supports the use of the CIB as a cognitive screen for inpatient older adults, in order to help inform clinical treatment decisions and discharge planning. Keywords: cognition, screening, aging, hospitalization, care transition
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".