Outcomes and cost analysis of patients with dementia in the intensive care unit: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dementia is a neurological syndrome affecting the growing elderly population. While patients with dementia are known to require significant hospital resources, little is known regarding the outcomes and costs of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with dementia. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients with dementia admitted to the ICU in Ontario, Canada from 2016 to 2019. We described the characteristics and outcomes of these patients alongside those with dementia admitted to non-ICU hospital settings. The primary outcome was hospital mortality but we also assessed length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and costs. RESULTS: Among 114,844 patients with dementia, 11,341 (9.9%) were admitted to the ICU. ICU patients were younger, more comorbid, and had less cognitive impairment (81.8 years, 22.8% had ≥ 3 comorbidities, 47.5% with moderate-severe dementia), compared to those in non-ICU settings (84.2 years, 15.0% had ≥ 3 comorbidities, 54.1% with moderate-severe dementia). Total mean LOS for patients in the ICU group was nearly 20 days, compared to nearly 14 days for the acute care group. Mortality in hospital was nearly three-fold greater in the ICU group compared to non-ICU group (22.2% vs. 8.8%). Total healthcare costs were increased for patients admitted to ICU vs. those in the non-ICU group ($67,201 vs. $54,080). CONCLUSIONS: We find that patients with dementia admitted to the ICU have longer length of stay, higher in-hospital mortality, and higher total healthcare costs. As our study is primarily descriptive, future studies should investigate comprehensive goals of care planning, severity of illness, preventable costs, and optimizing quality of life in this high risk and vulnerable population.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".