Functional and cognitive decline in older delirious adults after an emergency department visit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of emergency department (ED) stay-associated delirium on older patient's functional and cognitive status at 60 days post ED visit. METHODS: this study was part of the multi-centre prospective cohort INDEED study. This project took place between March 2015 and July 2016 in five participating EDs across the province of Quebec. Independent non-delirious patients aged ≥65, with an ED stay ≥8 hours, were monitored for delirium until 24 hours post ward admission. A 60-day follow-up phone assessment was conducted. Participants were screened for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method. Functional and cognitive statuses were assessed at baseline and at the 60-day follow-up using OARS and TICS-m. RESULTS: a total of 608 patients were recruited, 393 of which completed the 60-day follow-up. The Confusion Assessment Method was positive in 69 patients (11.8%) during ED stay or within the first 24 hours following ward admission. At 60 days, delirium patients experienced an adjusted loss of -2.9/28 [95%CI: -3.9, -2.0] points on the OARS scale compared to non-delirious patients who lost -1.6 [95%CI: -1.9, -1.3] (P = 0.006). A significant adjusted difference in cognitive function was also noted at 60 days, as TICS-m scores in delirious patients decreased by -1.6 [95%CI: -3.5, 0.2] compared to non-delirious patients, who showed a minor improvement of 0.5 [95%CI: -0.1, 1.1] (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: seniors who developed ED stay-associated delirium have lower baseline functional and cognitive status than non-delirious patients, and they will experience a more significant decline at 60 days post ED visit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".