MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233024354 · doi:10.17294/2330-0698.1424

Models for Predicting Incident Delirium in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Systematic Review

2016· review· en· W4233024354 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sundeep Kalimisetty, Wajih Askar, Brenda Fay, Ariba Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumIncidence (geometry)MedicineOlder peopleEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Delirium is common in hospitalized older adults, and 40% of cases may be preventable. Hospital Elder Life Program is an evidence-based program to reduce incidence of delirium. It has been successfully implemented in one hospital and will be implemented in four other hospitals. Identification of patients at highest risk of developing delirium using the electronic health record (EHR) may be an effective targeted strategy to reduce the incidence of delirium. Purpose: To systematically review and summarize the medical literature regarding risk prediction models for delirium in older inpatients. Methods: A medical librarian customized and conducted the search strategy for all published medical articles on delirium prediction models. Electronic databases sourced included Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Controlled vocabulary terms specific to database as well as relevant keywords were used, including variants of delirium, altered mental status, acute confusional state, acute brain syndrome, acute brain failure, metabolic encephalopathy, predict, predictive, prediction, models, modeling, scores, scoring, tests, testing, rules, index and indices. The bibliographies of included studies were examined, and no additional articles were referenced. Results: To appropriately extract data from the 12 studies meeting inclusion criteria, the following parameters were used: study description, study population, delirium assessment method, incidence of delirium, and risk factors for delirium. Quality for cohort studies was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale ranging from 1 to 9 (1 = poor quality, 9 = high quality). Overall incidence of delirium in the studies ranged from 4% to 26%. Most common risk factors for delirium were dementia, decreased functional status, blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio, infection and severe illness. Other variables less common were alcohol, malignancy, history of delirium, older age, medications, physical restraints, malnutrition, admitted from other than home and an iatrogenic event. The quality of studies ranged from 4 to 8. Conclusion: This systematic review summarizes the medical literature on risk prediction models for delirium in hospitalized older patients. We will use this information to develop an EHR-generated delirium risk prediction model to be used by the Hospital Elder Life Program to reduce delirium incidence.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.017
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of patient-centered research and reviewsSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207