Increased symptom expression among patients (PTS) with delirium admitted to an acute palliative care unit (APCU).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
56 Background: Previous case reports found that delirium-induced disinhibition may lead to overexpression of symptoms. Our aim was to determine the effect of delirium on the reporting of symptom severity in pts with advanced cancer. Methods: We reviewed 329 consecutive pts admitted to the APCU without a diagnosis of delirium from Jan 2011-Dec 2011. Demographics, Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), ECOG, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) on 2 time points were collected. Pts who developed delirium and those who did not develop delirium during the entire course of admission were compared using Chi-Squared test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Paired t-test was used to assess if the change of ESAS from baseline to follow-up was associated with delirium. Results: 96/329 (29%) of pts developed delirium during their admission to the APCU. The median time to delirium was 2 days. There was no difference in the length of stay in the APCU for both groups. Table 1 shows the changes in the ESAS scores of the two groups from baseline to follow-up. Pts who did not have delirium expressed improvement in all their symptoms while those who developed delirium during the hospitalization showed no improvement in physical symptoms and worsening in depression, anxiety, appetite and wellbeing. Conclusions: Pts with delirium reported no improvement or worsening symptoms as compared to pts without delirium. Screening for delirium is important in pts who continue to report worsening symptoms despite appropriate management. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".