MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726645986 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.990

FREQUENCY AND STABILITY OF MOTOR SUBTYPES IN OLDER MEDICAL INPATIENTS WITH DELIRIUM

2017· article· en· W2726645986 on OpenAlexaff
Niamh O’Regan, Dimitrios Adamis, D. William Molloy, David Meagher, Suzanne Timmons

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumLongitudinal studyMedicineEmergency medicinePsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypoactive delirium is most commonly missed and yields the worst outcomes. Little is known about longitudinal course of motor subtypes, as most studies are cross-sectional in nature. We aimed to investigate the frequency and stability of motor subtypes in incident delirium in older medical inpatients. Medical inpatients of ≥70 years without prevalent delirium on admission underwent daily assessment for ≤7 days for incident delirium. Motor activity profile was established using the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale-4 (DMSS-4). Longitudinal subtypes were ascertained by examining the daily profiles of each delirious patient. In total, 1219 assessments were performed in 191 patients, 61 with incident delirium. Hypoactive subtype was most prevalent on any given delirium day (n= 75/113, 66.4%) and was the most common longitudinal subtype (n=38/61, 62.3%). Hypoactive delirium is highly prevalent in older medical inpatients. Hence, delirium education programmes should focus on improving understanding and awareness of this subtle presentation amongst clinicians.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207