RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF OLDER PATIENTS VISITING EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AND RISK OF DEATH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the effects of geriatric and gerontological recommendations for the management of geriatric patients visiting an emergency department (ED) on risk of death in the first year following the ED visit. Methods: A total of 131 geriatric patients who visited Angers University hospital ED were prospectively included in this pre-post quasi-experimental study. They were separated in three groups matched on age and gender: two intervention groups (11 patients with geriatric recommendations and 23 patients with gerontological recommendations) and one control group (97 patients without any recommendations). Intervention was provided upon the participant’s ED admission. Incident mortality was collected via the administrative registry of Hospital before patients’ discharge and via a systematic phone call 12 months after the ED visit. Age, gender, place of living, number of daily drugs taken, cognitive decline, and reason for ED admission were used as covariates. Results: Multiple Cox regression model showed that gerontological recommendations were associated with a lower rate of mortality (adjusted Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.12, P=0.038) but not geriatric recommendations (adjusted HR=9.94, P=0.905). Living at home was associated with a greater risk of death (adjusted HR=2.55 with P=0.020). Kaplan-Meier distributions of mortality confirmed that patients who received gerontological recommendations had a lower mortality rate compared to those who did no received recommendations (P=0.005) and those who received geriatric recommendations (P=0.015). Conclusions: Our findings show that gerontological but not geriatric recommendations were associated with a lower risk of mortality after an ED visit in geriatric patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".