International Programme for Resource Use in Critical Care (IPOC) – a methodology and initial results of cost and provision in four European countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A standardized top-down costing method is not currently available internationally. An internally validated method developed in the UK was modified for use in critical care in different countries. Costs could then be compared using the World Health Organization's Purchasing Power Parities (WHO PPPs). METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, cross-sectional, multicentre study set in four European countries: France, UK, Germany and Hungary. A total of 329 adult intensive care units (ICUs) participated in the study. RESULTS: The costs are reported in international dollars ($) derived from the WHO PPP programme. The results show significant differences in resource use and costs of ICUs over the four countries. On the basis of the sum of the means for the major components, the average cost per patient day in UK hospitals was $1512, in French hospitals $934, in German hospitals $726 and in Hungarian hospitals $280. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons for such differences are poorly understood but warrant further investigation. This information will allow us to better adjust our measures of international ICU costs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".