Long‐term cognitive impairment after probable delirium in long‐term care residents: A population‐based retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of delirium on cognition has not been well-studied in long-term care (LTC) residents. This study examined changes in cognition 1 year after a probable delirium episode among LTC residents, compared to LTC residents without probable delirium. We also evaluated whether the relationship between probable delirium and cognitive change differed according to a diagnosis of dementia. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health administrative data. The study population included adults aged 65+ residing in LTC in Ontario, Canada and assessed via the Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Dataset between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018. Probable delirium was ascertained via the delirium Clinical Assessment Protocol on the index assessment. Cognition was measured quarterly using the Cognitive Performance Scale (range 0-6, higher values indicate greater impairment). Cognitive decline up to 1 year after index was evaluated using multivariable proportional odds regression models. RESULTS: Of 92,005 LTC residents, 2816 (3.1%) had probable delirium at index. Residents with probable delirium had an increased odds of cognitive decline compared to those without probable delirium, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.99), 1.56 (95% CI 1.34-1.85), 1.57 (95% CI 1.32-1.86) and 1.50 (95% CI 1.25-1.80) after 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 months of follow-up. Residents with probable delirium and a comorbid dementia diagnosis had the highest adjusted odds of cognitive decline (adjusted odds ratio 5.57, 95% CI 4.79-6.48) compared to those without probable delirium or dementia. Residents with probable delirium were also more likely to die within 1 year than those without probable delirium (52.5% vs. 23.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Probable delirium is associated with increased mortality and worsened cognition in LTC residents that is sustained months after the probable delirium episode. Efforts to prevent delirium in this population may help limit these adverse effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".