Back

Unscreenable: The Burden, Structure, and Analytic Consequences of "Unable to Assess" Delirium Documentation in the Intensive Care Unit

Gorenshtein, A.; Adiniaev, Y.; Omar, M.; Barash, Y.; Klang, E.; Daniel, O.

2026-06-23 neurology
10.64898/2026.06.13.26355598 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: To quantify the burden, structure, and downstream analytic consequences of "Unable to Assess" (UTA) delirium documentation in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design: Retrospective cross-sectional and repeated-measures study. Setting: A single US academic medical center (Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV [MIMIC-IV], 2008-2019). Patients: 72,944 adult ICU stays with at least 1 delirium screen. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Among 610,632 screens, 130,455 (21.4%; 95% CI, 21.0%-21.8%) were recorded as UTA, exceeding the 119,052 (19.5%) scored positive. The UTA fraction rose from 2.0% at a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of 0 to 97.8% at RASS -4; 22.0% of UTA screens occurred in arousable patients, where UTA was associated with mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR], 3.43; 95% CI, 3.17-3.71) and non-English primary language (OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 3.43-4.08). Building the delirium label three ways from the same patients shifted prevalence modestly (32.1% to 30.8%) and prediction (area under the curve, 0.737 to 0.719) but most affected the delirium-mortality association: in a baseline-adjusted model the OR was 4.12 (95% CI, 3.88-4.36) under complete-case handling and fell to 2.16 (95% CI, 2.06-2.27) when UTA was recoded as negative. UTA was recoverable from the observed clinical state (area under the curve, 0.95). Conclusions: In this ICU cohort, Unable to Assess was the most common recorded delirium result other than Negative, exceeding positive screens; recoding it as negative roughly halved the apparent delirium-mortality association by relabeling deeply sedated, high-mortality patients. Delirium datasets should preserve and report UTA, whose concentration among arousable non-English-speaking patients is a measurable equity target.

Matching journals

The top 16 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 13%
13.5%
2
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.6%
3
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.4%
4
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.3%
5
Age and Ageing
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
6
Critical Care Explorations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.6%
8
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.6%
9
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
10
Neurocritical Care
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
11
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
12
Molecular Psychiatry
282 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
13
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
14
Brain Communications
166 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
15
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
16
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.2%
50% of probability mass above
17
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
18
European Journal of Neurology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
19
Critical Care Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
20
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.1%
21
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
22
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
23
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
24
Translational Psychiatry
260 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
25
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
26
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
27
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
28
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
29
F1000Research
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
30
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%