PRISMA-7 and Risk for Short-Term Adverse Events in Older Patients Visiting the Emergency Department: Results of a Large Observational and Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The "Program of Research on the Integration of Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy" (PRISMA-7) is the reference tool for the assessment of older patients visiting the emergency departments (EDs) in the province of Quebec (Canada). This study aimed to examine 1) whether the PRISMA-7 high-risk level for disabilities was associated with the length of stay in ED and in hospital, and hospital admission; and 2) performance criteria (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], negative predictive value [NPV], likelihood ratios [LR]) of the PRISMA-7 high-risk level for the length of stay in ED and hospital, and hospital admission in older ED users. METHODS: A total of 12,983 older ED users of the Jewish General Hospital (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) were recruited in this observational and prospective cohort study. All enrolled participants had a PRISMA-7 assessment upon their arrival at ED. The length of stay in ED and hospital, and hospital admission were used as outcomes. RESULTS: A PRISMA-7 high-risk level was associated with an increased length of stay in ED and hospital (β ≥2.1 with P≤0.001 and Hazard ratio (HR)= ≥1.2 with P≤0.001) as well as in hospital (HR=1.27 with P≤0.001) in patients on a stretcher. All performance criteria were low (i.e., <0.78). Patients with a PRISMA-7 high-risk level were discharged significantly later from ED and hospital compared to those with low-risk level (P=0.001). INTERPRETATION: A PRISMA-7 high-risk level was associated with a long length of stay in ED and hospital, and hospital admission in patients on a stretcher but had poor performance criteria for these adverse events, suggesting that it cannot be used as a prognostic tool in older ED users.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".