MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396853256 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0302888

Characterizing medical patients with delirium: A cohort study comparing ICD-10 codes and a validated chart review method

2024· article· en· W4396853256 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kathleen Sheehan, Saeha Shin, Elise Hall, Denise Mak, Lauren Lapointe‐Shaw, Terence Tang, Seema Marwaha, Dov Gandell, Shail Rawal, Sharon K. Inouye, Amol A. Verma, Fahad Razak

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalTrillium Health CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDepartment of Psychiatry, University of TorontoMedical Psychiatry AllianceCanadian Frailty NetworkUniversity of TorontoCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsDeliriumMedicineChartMedical recordRetrospective cohort studyEmergency medicineComorbidityDiagnosis codeCohort studyCohortAcute careIntensive care medicineInternal medicineHealth carePopulationStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a major cause of preventable mortality and morbidity in hospitalized adults, but accurately determining rates of delirium remains a challenge. OBJECTIVE: To characterize and compare medical inpatients identified as having delirium using two common methods, administrative data and retrospective chart review. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 3881 randomly selected internal medicine hospital admissions from six acute care hospitals in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Delirium status was determined using ICD-10-CA codes from hospital administrative data and through a previously validated chart review method. Baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, processes of care and outcomes were compared across those without delirium in hospital and those with delirium as determined by administrative data and chart review. RESULTS: Delirium was identified in 6.3% of admissions by ICD-10-CA codes compared to 25.7% by chart review. Using chart review as the reference standard, ICD-10-CA codes for delirium had sensitivity 24.1% (95%CI: 21.5-26.8%), specificity 99.8% (95%CI: 99.5-99.9%), positive predictive value 97.6% (95%CI: 94.6-98.9%), and negative predictive value 79.2% (95%CI: 78.6-79.7%). Age over 80, male gender, and Charlson comorbidity index greater than 2 were associated with misclassification of delirium. Inpatient mortality and median costs of care were greater in patients determined to have delirium by ICD-10-CA codes (5.8% greater mortality, 95% CI: 2.0-9.5 and $6824 greater cost, 95%CI: 4713-9264) and by chart review (11.9% greater mortality, 95%CI: 9.5-14.2% and $4967 greater cost, 95%CI: 4415-5701), compared to patients without delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data are specific but highly insensitive, missing most cases of delirium in hospital. Mortality and costs of care were greater for both the delirium cases that were detected and missed by administrative data. Better methods of routinely measuring delirium in hospital are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207