This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

55/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

In this analytic cohort of 4130 participants, 486 (11.8%) experienced at least one hospitalization with delirium. Unadjusted regression analyses showed a higher incidence of delirium (proportion ratio, PR = 1.32; and 95% CI = 1.03, 1.69) and number of delirium events (incidence rate ratio, IRR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.05, 1.63) among participants from the highest ADI quartile compared to the lowest quartile. In fully adjusted models, this association was attenuated. Among participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, those from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods experienced a higher incidence and number of delirium events. In this cohort of hospitalized older adults, participants from more disadvantaged neighborhoods had a higher incidence of delirium; this association was attenuated in adjusted analyses. This suggests that neighborhood-level social disadvantage may be meaningful in studies on prevention and management of delirium, though overlapping demographic and clinical characteristics likely confound this relationship.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Umoh, M. E., Morales, E. E. G., Zhang, W., Brown, C. H., Oh, E. S., & Reed, N. S. (2026). Association Between ICD ‐Coded Delirium and Health Determinants in The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.70447

Vancouver

Umoh ME, Morales EEG, Zhang W, Brown CH, Oh ES, Reed NS. Association Between ICD ‐Coded Delirium and Health Determinants in The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2026. doi:10.1111/jgs.70447. PMID: 42068258.

BibTeX

@article{umoh2026-42068258,
  author  = {Umoh, Mfon E. and Morales, Emmanuel E. Garcia and Zhang, Wuyang and Brown, Charles H and Oh, Esther S. and Reed, Nicholas S.},
  title   = {{Association Between ICD ‐Coded Delirium and Health Determinants in The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1111/jgs.70447},
  pmid    = {42068258},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.70447}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

In this analytic cohort of 4130 participants, 486 (11.8%) experienced at least one hospitalization with delirium.
Unadjusted regression analyses showed a higher incidence of delirium (proportion ratio, PR = 1.32; and 95% CI = 1.03, 1.69) and number of delirium events (incidence rate ratio, IRR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.05, 1.63) among participants from the highest ADI quartile compared to the lowest quartile.
In fully adjusted models, this association was attenuated.
Among participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, those from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods experienced a higher incidence and number of delirium events.
In this cohort of hospitalized older adults, participants from more disadvantaged neighborhoods had a higher incidence of delirium; this association was attenuated in adjusted analyses.

Why it matters

In a cohort of 4,130 hospitalized older adults, those from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a higher incidence of delirium in unadjusted analyses, but this link weakened after adjusting for other factors. Among those with mild cognitive impairment and dementia, more disadvantaged neighborhoods were still linked to more delirium events, but the study does not test any treatment or prevention.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Study designprospective cohort
Participants4,130
Effect size11.8%; RR = 1.30
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 55/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a prospective cohort study, followed forward from enrollment. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 53 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	Journal of the American Geriatrics Society: journal h-index 344 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A prospective cohort study, followed forward from enrollment
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	5 / 5	2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	3 / 4	4,130 participants
Effect reported	3 / 3	Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	0 / 7	Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year	0 / 6	Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	— / 4	OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Nicholas S. Reed holds only 3 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record	3 / 3	Stanford University: institution h-index 2,684 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42068258)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	53 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 53 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100.
Total	55 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Related studies in Risk factors

Also tagged “biobank”

1,084 studies in the library carry the topic tag “biobank”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,084 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →