Supplementary Material for: Cognitive Predictors of Delirium on Long-Term Follow-Up after TIA and Stroke: Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: TIA and stroke cause cognitive impairment with a typical “vascular” pattern, including prominent frontal/executive deficits. Cognitive impairment is associated with increased delirium risk and the few available data suggest that executive dysfunction is important. We therefore determined the predictive value of both severity and pattern of cognitive deficits for delirium on long-term follow-up after TIA/stroke. Methods: Surviving TIA/stroke participants on October 1, 2013, in the Oxford Vascular Study (OXVASC) were assessed prospectively for delirium during all hospitalizations over the subsequent 6 months. Associations between OXVASC pre-admission mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores, and delirium during hospitalizations on follow-up were determined using logistic regression adjusted for covariates, including demographic factors, history of depression, baseline stroke severity, and admission illness severity. Results: Among 1,565 TIA/stroke survivors, 158 patients (mean/SD age = 79.2/11.5 years) had ≥1 admission and 59 (37%) had ≥1 delirium episode. Mean/SD time between baseline TIA/stroke and admission was 4.7/3.6 years and between most recent OXVASC cognitive testing and admission was 1.7/1.8 years. MMSE and MoCA scores were associated with delirium: odds ratio (OR) = 1.16 (95% CI 1.07–1.27, p < 0.0001 per point decrease in MMSE) and OR = 1.20 (1.11–1.30, p < 0.0001 MoCA) and associations were robust to adjustment for all covariates, including stroke severity: OR = 1.11 (1.01–1.22, p = 0.03, MMSE) and OR = 1.15 (1.05–1.25, p = 0.003, MoCA). All 10 subtests on the MoCA and 4/11 on the MMSE were significantly associated with delirium with highest predictive value for frontal/executive and recall domains. Conclusions: Cognitive impairment of increasing severity after TIA/stroke predisposed to delirium particularly deficits in frontal/executive domains and recall. Long-term risk of delirium should be considered as part of the overall cerebrovascular disease burden.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.581 | 0.072 |
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".