MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117308689 · doi:10.1002/alz70857_103842

Who stands to lose the most: impact of delirium on long‐term cognitive impairment in a hip fracture repair cohort

2025· article· en· W7117308689 on OpenAlexaff
Mfon Umoh, Anirudh Sharma, Jeannie‐Marie Leoutsakos, Kostas Lyketsos, Sharon K. Inouye, Edward R. Marcantonio, Paul B. Rosenberg, Karin J. Neufeld, Frederick E. Sieber, Esther Oh

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumCohortCognitive impairmentIncidence (geometry)Hip fractureCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Delirium, an acute disorder of attention and cognition, is a potentially preventable contributor to poor outcomes in older adults including future cognitive decline. The goal of this study was to determine the cognitive impact of postoperative delirium on patients who underwent hip fracture repair (HFR) over a 1-year period. Our hypothesis was that the downstream impact of delirium may be greater among individuals who are cognitively unimpaired compared to those who have cognitive impairment at baseline. METHOD: Cognitive assessments from 200 HFR patients enrolled in the randomized clinical trial "A Strategy to Reduce the Incidence of Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients" (STRIDE) were examined for cognitive changes at 1-year after surgery. Inclusion criteria were age ≥65 and Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score ≥15. Delirium status and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) were adjudicated by a consensus diagnostic panel. Global CDR score was used to define subgroups. Data were analyzed using a random-intercept linear spline model, with MMSE over time as outcome of interest; MMSE scores at baseline, 1-month, and 1-year were used. RESULT: Delirium incidence in this cohort was 36.5%. Prior to surgery, 41% were cognitively unimpaired (CDR=0), while 58% had mild cognitive impairment or dementia (CDR>0), 2 cases were missing CDR. Baseline MMSE was 2.054 points lower for the group that experienced delirium compared to the no delirium group in the entire cohort (Figure 1). Delirium incidence was associated with rate of decline in MMSE scores in the entire cohort. Incident delirium was associated with more rapid rate of MMSE decline in the entire cohort (β=-0.002, SE=0.001, p = 0.110) (Figure 1) and in the subgroup without cognitive impairment (CDR=0) (β=-0.004, SE=0.002, p = 0.046) (Figure 2); but not in participants with baseline cognitive impairment (CDR>0). Greater delirium severity, measured by Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), was associated with more rapid decline in MMSE only for the subgroup without cognitive impairment (β = -0.0004, SE=0.0001, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Delirium incidence and severity impact cognitive changes in older adults undergoing HFR, most significantly in those who are cognitively unimpaired. Results from this cohort are aligned with other studies suggesting that cognitively unimpaired individuals stand to lose the most after delirium.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→