Persistent delirium is associated with cerebrospinal fluid markers of neuronal injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Delirium is associated with the risk of future long-term cognitive impairment, but the degree to which markers of neuronal injury may be distinct or shared with dementia has yet to be comprehensively described. We investigated CSF biomarkers of dementia, astrocytosis and neuronal damage in a clinical cohort with persistent delirium, comparing them with an outpatient memory clinic sample. Our aim was to determine if different patterns of biomarker changes could implicate specific mechanisms for delirium-related neuronal injury over and above that attributable to comorbid dementia. We recruited 35 participants from the Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia. We included inpatients with delirium persisting for at least 5 days (n = 15, 10 with underlying dementia) and participants from outpatient memory clinics (n = 20, 17 with dementia). CSF assays were as follows: amyloid-β42, amyloid-β40, phosphorylated tau181, neurofilament light chain and glial fibrillary acidic protein. We used propensity score matching to estimate effect sizes for each standardized CSF biomarker separately for persistent delirium (irrespective of underlying dementia) and dementia (irrespective of superimposed delirium). Compared with individuals without delirium, persistent delirium was associated with elevated glial fibrillary acidic protein (normalized coefficient per transformed standard deviation, β = 0.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.03–1.68) and neurofilament light chain (β = 1.1; 95% confidence interval: 0.5–1.6), but not phosphorylated tau181. Compared with individuals without dementia, glial fibrillary acidic protein, neurofilament light chain and phosphorylated tau181 were all increased to expected levels in dementia cases, with the former two biomarkers at levels comparable to those seen in persistent delirium [glial fibrillary acidic protein (β = 1.54; 95% confidence interval: 1.05–2.0) and neurofilament light chain (β = 0.65; 95% confidence interval: 0.24–1.1)]. Persistent delirium was linked with changes in CSF biomarkers not necessarily attributable to dementia. These findings support the potential that delirium is associated with direct neuronal injury independent of dementia pathophysiology. Whether this neuronal injury involves astrocyte dysfunction or direct axonal damage are both possibilities. Future work examining acute brain injury in delirium is 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".