P12 Longterm outcomes for alcohol related cognitive impairment (ARCI) in an acute hospital setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3></h3> Excess alcohol can cause neuro-cognitive impairment. There is a paucity of outcome data for patients with alcohol-related cognitive impairment (ARCI). This study used the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a screening tool to detect ARCI and retrospectively assess survival outcomes at 2 and 5 years. Patients identified as at risk of ARCI had an initial MOCA (iMoCA) performed by the alcohol care team. A database for patients who met screening criteria was created. NHS Spine was inbuilt, to update individual mortality (in days) from iMOCA. It was closed at 5 years from the final entrant and a retrospective review of electronic records was performed. Of the 210 patients who met screening criteria for ARCI; majority (144) were male, mean age was 52 (26–80) and 149 (70.9%) had no underlying Chronic Liver Disease (CLD). 109 (51.9%) patients had an abnormal iMoCA with 74 (35%) scoring <24. Of these 74, 26 (35.1%) died within 2 years compared with 25 (24.8%) of patients with MoCA >24. Subgroup analysis found 16/49 (32.7%) of patients with no-CLD and low iMoCA died within 2 years, compared with 19/74 (25.7%) in the no-CLD and normal iMoCA group. 10/25 (40%) of patients with low iMoCA and CLD died within 2 years, compared with 6/27 (22.2%) who had normal iMoCA and CLD. Mortality at 5years for low iMoCA + no-CLD was 24/49 (49%) which was similar to normal iMoCA + CLD 14/27 (51.9%). For non-cirrhotics, survival outcomes were better at 2 years if iMoCA <24 and any MoCA follow up recorded. p value of 0.01 (graph 1). For those who showed cognitive recovery with serial MoCA, there was no demonstrable survival benefit during the follow up period. Despite the limitations of this study there are important messages that have not been previously recorded. There is a clear relationship, 10.3% difference, between early mortality (defined as 2 years) and low iMoCA, particularly in those with co-existent CLD. We have also identified a statistically significant survival benefit in the non-cirrhotics who received ARCI follow up. There is a lack of recognition of ARCI and minimal services currently available to patients. Overall poor outcomes, but improvement for those engaging with services, underscores the need for further research in this area and crucially, the ongoing development of new models of care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".