MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155011227 · doi:10.1017/s0714980820000355

Cognitive Impairment and Length of Stay in Acute Care Hospitals: A Scoping Review of the Literature

2021· review· en· W3155011227 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan Plante, Karine Latulippe, Edeltraut Kröger, Dominique Giroux, M. Marcotte, Sacha Nadeau, Elizabeth Doyle, Kenneth Rockwood

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie UniversityUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissement
KeywordsCognitive impairmentMedicineAssociation (psychology)Narrative reviewCognitionAcute careGerontologyHospital dischargeHealth careMEDLINEClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryIntensive care medicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older persons experiencing a longer length of stay (LOS) or delayed discharge (DD) may see a decline in their health and well-being, generating significant costs. This review aimed to identify evidence on the impact of cognitive impairment (CI) on acute care hospital LOS/DD. A scoping review of studies examining the association between CI and LOS/DD was performed. We searched six databases; two reviewers independently screened references until November 2019. A narrative synthesis was used to answer the research question; 58 studies were included of which 33 found a positive association between CI and LOS or DD, 8 studies had mixed results, 3 found an inverse relationship, and 14 showed an indirect link between CI-related syndromes and LOS/DD. Thus, cognitive impairment seemed to be frequently associated with increased LOS/DD. Future research should consider CI together with other risks for LOS/DD and also focus on explaining the association between the two.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207