MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618401934 · doi:10.1177/0891988717710338

Motor Disturbances in Elderly Medical Inpatients and Their Relationship to Delirium

2017· article· en· W2618401934 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dimitrios Adamis, Geraldine McCarthy, Edmond O’Mahony, David Meagher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineCognitionRating scalePopulationHypoactivityDementiaInternal medicinePsychologyPsychiatryCognitive impairmentDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motor disturbances in delirious patients are common, but their relationship to cognition and severity of illness has not been studied. We examined motor subtypes in an older age inpatient population, their relationship to clinical variables including delirium, and their association with 1-year mortality in a prospective study, using the Confusion Assessment Method, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Barthel Index, and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised 98 (DRS-R98). Motor subtypes were evaluated using 2 items of DRS-R98. Mortality rates were investigated 1 year later. Two hundred participated (mean age 81.1 [6.5]; 50% female). Thirty-four (17%) were identified with delirium. Motor subtypes were none: 119 (59.5%), hypoactive: 37 (18.5%), hyperactive: 29 (14.5%), and mixed: 15 (7.5%). Hypoactive and mixed subtypes were significantly more frequent in delirious patients. Regression analysis showed that hypoactive subtype was significantly associated with lower MoCA. No relationship between motor subtypes and mortality was found. Motor disturbances are not unique to delirium, with hypoactivity particularly associated with impaired cognition.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geriatric Psychiatry and NeurologySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207