Recall of delirium and related distress in elderly hospitalized patients: A prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Delirium is a very common neuropsychiatric disorder in the elderly, with a significant physical and psychological burden. Much is still unknown about its psychological effects. This study aims to identify the proportion of patients who recall delirium and to analyze the distress caused by it. In addition, this study aims to analyze the association between delirium recall and related distress and global psychological distress regarding hospitalization. Methods: This is a prospective study with elderly hospitalized patients in level-2 units of intensive care medicine department of a university hospital. Exclusion criteria were a Glasgow Coma Scale total ≤11, brain injury, blindness, deafness, or inability to communicate. Delirium was daily assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method. Delirium recall and related distress in patients were measured using the Delirium Experience Questionnaire. Global psychological distress was assessed with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. Results: From 105 patients, 38 (36.2%) developed delirium. Most patients did not remember the delirium episode (64.7%). Among those who remembered (35.3%), most described delirium as a distressing experience (75%). Delirium recall was associated with high global psychological distress (P = .029). Conclusions: Distress related to delirium is high, namely in patients who recall the episode. Global psychological distress during hospitalization is associated with delirium recall. This study highlights the need to assess the experience of delirium in these patients, as well as the importance of providing support and psychological interventions to minimize the associated distress.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".