MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cognitive and Functional Decline Among Long-Term Care Residents

2025· article· en· W4409728783 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ramtin Hakimjavadi, Christina Y Yin, Mary Scott, Robert Talarico, Tim Ramsay, Colleen Webber, Douglas G. Manuel, Aliza Moledina, Amy T. Hsu, Celeste Fung, Sharon Kaasalainen, Jackie Kierulf, Frank Molnar, Sandy Shamon, Benoît Robert, Paul E. Ronksley, Peter Tanuseputro, Kumanan Wilson, Daniel Kobewka

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityBruyèrePublic Health Agency of CanadaOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineLong-term careIncidence (geometry)CohortCognitive impairmentCohort studyGerontologyPopulationRetrospective cohort studyAcute careHealth careDemographyEmergency medicineCognitionEnvironmental healthPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Care decisions for long-term care (LTC) residents should be frailty-informed to maximize well-being and avoid burdensome treatments that do not align with patient wishes. Objective: To investigate the incidence and time spent living with severe impairment among LTC residents to help inform person-centered decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted among a population-based cohort of incident admissions to LTC facilities between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2018, determined using administrative health data in Ontario, Canada. Ontario residents aged 65 years or older who were admitted to LTC were included. Participants were followed up until death, discharge, or April 1, 2023. Data analysis was completed from October 17, 2023, to March 31, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were states of impairment that care partners identified as meaningful and some considered worse than death. The incidence of total care dependence, inability to make any decisions, inability to communicate, and incontinence of stool or urine was described. Survival after becoming impaired, characteristics of residents when they became impaired, and characteristics of those who survived for more than 1 year with each impairment were described. Residents at risk of a specific impairment (at-risk residents) were those who did not already have the impairment at admission. Results: A total of 120 238 residents admitted to LTC (mean [SD] age, 84.3 [7.7] years; 77 868 female [64.8%]) were included. By the end of follow-up, 22 018 of 109 830 at-risk residents (20.0%) had become permanently unable to make decisions, 9138 of 118 132 at-risk residents (7.7%) had become permanently unable to communicate, 15 711 of 116 848 at-risk residents (13.4%) had developed total care dependence, and 30 449 of 92 974 at-risk residents (32.8%) had developed incontinence of stool or urine. Median (IQR) survival time was shortest for residents who entered a state of total care dependence (45 [5-310] days) and longest for those with newly developed incontinence of stool or urine (356 [79-1031] days). Younger residents (eg, median [IQR] survival after developing total care dependence, 133 (17-735) days for ages <80 years vs 30 (4-217) days for ages ≥80 years) and those with dementia at admission (eg, median [IQR] survival after developing the inability to make decisions, 318 [40-1020] days with dementia vs 74 [4-474] days without dementia) had longer median survival after entering a state of severe impairment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, severe permanent impairment in function and cognition were common and often present near the end of life for LTC residents, but a minority of residents lived in these states for years. These results suggest that building shared understanding and open communication about the natural course of frailty trajectories for LTC residents may support resident-centered medical decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207