Clinical impression for identification of vulnerable older patients in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the clinical impression of vulnerability and the Dutch Safety Management Program (VMS), a screening instrument on four geriatric domains (activities in daily living, falls, malnutrition, delirium) are useful predictors of 1-year mortality in older patients in the emergency department. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study in the emergency department of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Patients aged 65 years and older visiting the emergency department, and their attending physicians and nurses were included. Clinical impression of vulnerability appraised by physician and nurse and the VMS-screening were recorded. RESULTS: We included 196 patients of whom 64.8%, 61.7%, and 52.6% were considered vulnerable based on the clinical impression of vulnerability of physicians, nurses, and VMS-screening, respectively. Agreement between clinical impression of vulnerability of physicians and nurses, and VMS-screening were both fair (overall agreement 63.3% for both, and respectively kappa 0.32 and kappa 0.31). Clinical impression of vulnerability of physicians, nurses, and VMS-screening had a sensitivity of respectively 94%, 86%, and 73% for predicting 1-year mortality. A positive clinical impression of vulnerability was associated mostly with factors which can be observed directly during first patient contact after arrival to the emergency department, such as age, nutritional status, and functional impairment. CONCLUSION: The clinical impression of vulnerability is a simple dichotomous question which can be used as a first step in the identification of vulnerable older emergency department patients, whereas the more time-consuming VMS-screening is more specific for detection of vulnerability. The clinical impression of vulnerability is therefore useful in a busy emergency department environment where time and resources are limited.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".