MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412848294 · doi:10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100731

Occurrence, associated factors, and outcomes of delirium in patients in an adult acute general medicine service in England: a 10-year longitudinal, observational study

2025· article· en· W4412848294 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jasmine Gan, Emily Boucher, Nicola Lovett, Sophie Roche, S C L Smith, Sarah T. Pendlebury

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Healthy Longevity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreRhodes ScholarshipsDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute on Handicapped Research
KeywordsDeliriumMedicineObservational studyDementiaHazard ratioComorbidityGeriatricsOrganic mental disordersLongitudinal studyOdds ratioPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryConfidence intervalDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Reliable estimates of delirium occurrence and outcomes are necessary to inform hospital services, research, and policy, but inclusive cohorts with long-term follow-up are scarce. We aimed to assess the age-specific occurrence of delirium in acute general (internal) medicine, associated factors, and 10-year outcomes stratified by age and comorbid dementia status. Methods This longitudinal, observational study was done at the John Radcliffe Hospital (Oxford, UK). We included consecutive adult patients aged 16 years and older in an acute general (internal) medicine service over six 8-week periods (between Sept 4, 2010, and Nov 15, 2018). Delirium was diagnosed prospectively using the Confusion Assessment Method and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, criteria and subcategorised as prevalent (≤48 h of admission) or incident (>48 h postadmission). Odds ratios adjusted ( adj ORs) for demographics, comorbidity, frailty, and illness severity were calculated for binarised outcomes and adjusted hazard ratios ( adj HRs) were calculated for time to death. Findings 1846 patients were admitted to acute general (internal) medicine (mean age 68·2 years [SD 20·0], age range 16–102 years), 426 (23% [95% CI 21–25]) of whom had delirium (prevalent n=290 [68%], incident n=73 [17%], both prevalent and incident n=63 [15%]), of whom 134 (31·5%) had dementia. 950 (51·5%) patients were female, 895 (48·5%) were male, and sex data were missing for one patient. Delirium increased with age, from six (2% [95% CI 1–4]) of 340 patients younger than 50 years and 31 (9% [6–13]) of 333 patients at age 50–64 years to 57 (20% [16–25]) of 281 at age 65–74 years, 245 (35% [31–38]) of 704 at age 75–89 years, and 87 (46% [39–54]) of 188 at age 90 years and older. Of the 37 patients younger than 65 years who had delirium, 28 (76%) had an underlying neurological or neuropsychiatric disorder. In those aged 65 years or older, delirium was overall associated (all p<0·001, age and sex adjusted) with dementia ( adj OR 3·63 [95% CI 2·65–4·98]), pre-admission dependency (2·63 [2·02–3·43]), comorbidity burden (1·04 [1·02–1·05]), and frailty (moderate vs low risk 3·62 [2·70–4·85] and high vs low risk 11·85 [7·24–19·42]), with stronger associations in patients without comorbid dementia than in those with comorbid dementia. Delirium predicted inpatient stay longer than 7 days ( adj OR 2·48 [1·84–3·35]), discharge care needs (2·41 [1·70–3·40]), and mortality during admission (2·45 [1·52–3·94]). The increased risk of death in the delirium group was highest in the immediate postadmission period and attenuated thereafter, but was maintained for up to 10 years of follow-up ( adj HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·40–2·97] for 30-day mortality vs 1·52 [1·30–1·77] for 10-year mortality). Excess inpatient mortality was highest in younger age groups versus older age groups ( adj OR 4·38 [95% CI 1·18–16·31]; p=0·028 at age 65–74 years vs 1·96 [1·02–3·75]; p=0·043 at age 75–89 years and 2·86 [1·14–7·16]; p=0·025 at age 90 years or older) and in those without versus with comorbid dementia ( adj OR 3·02 [1·73–5·25]; p<0·001 vs 1·47 [0·58–3·75]; p=0·42). Interpretation Our findings support current guidelines for routine on-admission delirium screening from age 65 years. Delirium outcomes are relatively more adverse in those aged 65–74 years without comorbid dementia in whom interventions and clinical trials should be prioritised. Funding National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations16
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Healthy LongevitySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207