MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226031628

[no title]

2022· article· en· W4226031628 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Tsui, Samuel D. Searle, Helen Bowden, Katrin Hoffmann, Joanne Hornby, Arley Goslett, Maryse Weston-Clarke, Lee Hamill Howes, Rebecca E Street, Rachel Perera, Kayvon Taee, Christoph Kustermann, Petronella Chitalu, Benjamin Razavi, Francesco Magni, Devajit Das, Sung J. Kim, Nish Chaturvedi, Elizabeth L Sampson, Kenneth Rockwood, Colm Cunningham, Sarah Richardson, Carol Brayne, Graciela Muñiz‐Terrera, Zoë Tieges, Alasdair M. J. MacLullich, Daniel Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueUCL Discovery (University College London) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsDeliriumCognitive impairmentBaseline (sea)CognitionTerm (time)MedicineProspective cohort studyPopulationPsychologyGerontologyPsychiatryInternal medicinePolitical scienceEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet public health need to understand better the relationship between baseline cognitive function, the occurrence and severity of delirium, and subsequent cognitive decline. Our aim was to quantify the relationship between baseline cognition and delirium and follow-up cognitive impairment. METHODS: We did a prospective longitudinal study in a stable representative community sample of adults aged 70 years or older who were registered with a Camden-based general practitioner in the London Borough of Camden (London, UK). Participants were recruited by invitation letters from general practice lists or by direct recruitment of patients from memory clinics or patients recently discharged from secondary care. We quantified baseline cognitive function with the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. In patients who were admitted to hospital, we undertook daily assessments of delirium using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). We estimated the association of pre-admission baseline cognitive function with delirium prevalence, severity, and duration. We assessed subsequent cognitive function 2 years after baseline recruitment using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. Regression models were adjusted by age, sex, education, illness severity, and frailty. FINDINGS: We recruited 1510 participants (median age 77 [IQR 73-82], 57% women) between March, 2017, and October, 2018. 209 participants were admitted to hospital across 371 episodes (1999 person-days of assessment). Better baseline cognition was associated with a lower risk of delirium (odds ratio 0·63, 95% CI 0·45 to 0·89) and with less severe delirium (-1·6 MDAS point, 95% CI -2·6 to -0·7). Individuals with high baseline cognition (baseline Z score +2·0 SD) had demonstrable decline even without delirium (follow-up Z score +1·2 SD). However, those with a high delirium burden had an even larger absolute decline of 2·2 SD in Z score (follow-up Z score -0·2). Once individuals had more than 2 days of moderate delirium, the rates of death over 2 years were similar regardless of baseline cognition; a better baseline cognition no longer conferred any mortality benefit. INTERPRETATION: A higher baseline cognitive function is associated with a good prognosis with regard to likelihood and severity of delirium. However, those with a high baseline cognition and with delirium had the highest degree of cognitive decline, a change similar to the decline observed in individuals with a high amyloid burden in other cohorts. Older people with a healthy baseline cognitive function who develop delirium stand to lose the most after delirium. This group could benefit from targeted cognitive rehabilitation interventions after delirium.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2670.130

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations60
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUCL Discovery (University College London)Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207