COGNITIVE ACTIVITIES FOR DELIRIUM SUPERIMPOSED ON DEMENTIA: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delirium is common in post-acute care (PAC) patients with dementia; its treatment is not established. We hypothesized that cognitive activities would reduce the duration and severity of delirium and improve cognitive and physical function to a greater extent than usual care. This was an NIH-funded single-blind randomized clinical trial conducted in eight PAC facilities. Participants were 283 community-dwelling older adults with dementia and delirium randomized to intervention or control. The intervention group received cognitive activities daily for up to 30 days. The control group received usual care. Primary outcomes were delirium duration (Confusion Assessment Method), and delirium severity (Delirium Rating Scale). Secondary outcomes were cognitive function (Digits Forward, Montreal Cognitive Assessment and CLOX) and physical function (Barthel Index). There were no differences between the groups for mean percentage of delirium-free days or delirium severity. Significant differences for secondary outcomes favoring intervention were found: executive function: 6.58 (95% CI: 6.12–7.04) vs. 5.89 (95% CI: 5.45–6.33), a difference of -0.69 (95% CI: 1.33- -0.06, p=0.03); and constructional praxis: 8.84 (95% CI: 8.83–9.34) vs. 7.53 (95% CI: 7.04–8.01), a difference of - 1.31 (95% CI: 2.01- -0.61, p=0.0003). After adjusting for baseline constructional praxis the group comparison was no longer significant. Average length of stay was shorter in intervention (36.09 days vs. 53.13 days, SE = 0.15, p = 0.01, negative binomial regression. Cognitive activities did not improve delirium but did improve executive function and reduced length of stay. Resolution of delirium may require more intense non-pharmacological management when the patient has dementia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".