Delirium in older adults is associated with development of new dementia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Observational studies have examined the association between delirium and development of new dementia. However, no recent review has collectively assessed the available evidence quantitatively and qualitatively. We systematically reviewed and critically evaluated the literature regarding the association between delirium and dementia, and calculated the odds of developing new dementia after having delirium. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO, were searched for English-language articles that compared the incidence of new dementia in older adult (≥65) inpatients with delirium, to inpatients without delirium. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis, and overall effect size was calculated using reported raw data of event counts. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: Six observational studies met eligibility criteria, with follow-up times ranging from six months to five years. Four looked at hip fracture surgical patients; one was on cardiac surgery patients and one examined geriatric medical patients. All studies excluded patients with pre-existing dementia. Pooled meta-analysis revealed that older adult inpatients who developed delirium had almost twelve times the odds of subsequently developing new dementia compared to non-delirious patients (OR = 11.9 [95% CI: 7.29-19.6]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Older adult inpatients who develop delirium are at significant risk of subsequently developing dementia. This emphasises the importance of delirium prevention and cognitive monitoring post-delirium. The included studies mainly examined post-surgical patients-further research on medical and intensive care unit cohorts is warranted. Future studies should assess whether delirium duration, severity and subtype influence the risk of developing 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".