MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543692759 · doi:10.1111/nicc.12166

Sex‐dependent disparities in critical illness: methodological implications for critical care research

2015· editorial· en· W1543692759 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Papathanassoglou, Nicos Middleton, Kathleen Hegadoren

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing in Critical Care · 2015
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical illnessMedicinePsychologyIntensive care medicineCritically ill

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite persistent efforts by government and research funding agencies to include sex and gender in human health-related research (Institute of Medicine, 2001) and acknowledgement that sex and gender are major determinants of many health-related outcomes (Vlassof, 2007), exploration of these issues in critical illness remains sparse. Historically, sex differences referred to biological dissimilarities between males and females, whereas, gender differences suggested the effect of psychosocially conditioned factors and sociopolitical environments (Holdcroft, 2007). More recently, epigenetic studies have clearly demonstrated interactions between social determinants (like gender) and past experiences and cellular responses to stress (Miller et al., 2011; Stankiewicz et al., 2013; Babenko et al., 2014), suggesting a blurring of these independent definitions. We will use the more inclusive term gender in this review, unless summarizing what authors have stated are sex-specific physiological processes.Although the gender gap in life expectancy, favouring women by 5 years on average (Rochelle et al., 2014), is still unexplained, women exhibit specific health-related susceptibilities (e.g. autoimmune, mood and anxiety disorders) compared to men (Verma et al., 2011). Moreover, in such disease states as coronary artery disease, health-related outcomes are less favourable in women. While some differences are likely attributed to differences in treatments and insidious gender bias (Alspach, 2012), in some conditions women may still have worse outcomes, despite identical care (Anderson and Pepine, 2007).In spite of a long-held belief that women have a better chance to survive critical illness (Kristensen et al., 2014), a closer look at the evidence reveals a complex interactive picture. This editorial aims to briefly synthesize current evidence on the influence of sex and gender on adult critically ill patients' outcomes and to discuss specific methodological implications for critical care research.

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)0.157
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.300
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1570.300
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.595
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.048 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing in Critical CareSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207