MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415040335 · doi:10.1111/psyg.70102

Cognitive Decline in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4415040335 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara Escriche‐Martinez, Unai Díaz-Orueta, Carlos Gala‐Serra, Esther Sierra‐Martínez, Ginesa López‐Crespo, Raúl López‐Antón

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychogeriatrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersErasmus+Fundación Bancaria Ibercaja
KeywordsCognitive declineCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPopulationCognitive impairmentCohort studyCohortComparabilityMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older adults often experience rapid cognitive decline following hospitalization, especially those with severe illness and extended stays. Despite known links between increasing patient age and cognitive decline, 30% of older adults without major pre-existing conditions prior to medical admission show potential undiagnosed cognitive decline. This scoping review aims to map the prevalence, assessment methods, and associated factors of cognitive decline among hospitalized older adults. We conducted an exploratory review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodological framework and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The review targeted studies published between January 2018 and March 2025 in English or Spanish that reported in-hospital cognitive assessments in individuals aged 65 years and older. 'Cognitive decline' was operationally defined as performance below established cut-off scores on validated tools, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE ≤ 23) or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA < 26), administered during hospitalization. Databases consulted included PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect. A narrative synthesis was undertaken to organise findings by study design, cognitive instruments, prevalence rates, and associated factors. A total of thirty studies met the inclusion criteria. Most employed cross-sectional or prospective cohort designs, with wide variability in hospital settings, timing of assessments, and cognitive tools used. The reported prevalence of cognitive impairment ranged from 10% to 85%, depending on the assessment tools and population characteristics. MMSE and MoCA were the most frequently used tools. Associated factors included advanced age, comorbidities, pre-existing cognitive decline, and frailty. Methodological heterogeneity hindered meta-analysis, but it also revealed important limitations in the comparability of the studies. This review identifies substantial heterogeneity in the assessment and reporting of cognitive decline among hospitalized older adults. The findings highlight the need for standardized screening protocols and improved methodological consistency to optimise the detection, cross-study comparability, and clinical relevance of cognitive assessments in hospital settings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.374 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychogeriatricsSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207