Progress on core outcome sets for critical care research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Appropriate selection and definition of outcome measures are essential for clinical trials to be maximally informative. Core outcome sets (an agreed, standardized collection of outcomes measured and reported in all trials for a specific clinical area) were developed due to established inconsistencies in trial outcome selection. This review discusses the rationale for, and methods of, core outcome set development, as well as current initiatives in critical care. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent systematic reviews of reported outcomes and measurement instruments relevant to the critically ill highlight inconsistencies in outcome selection, definition, and measurement, thus establishing the need for core outcome sets. Current critical care initiatives include development of core outcome sets for trials aimed at reducing mechanical ventilation duration; rehabilitation following critical illness; long-term outcomes in acute respiratory failure; and epidemic and pandemic studies of severe acute respiratory infection. SUMMARY: Development and utilization of core outcome sets for studies relevant to the critically ill is in its infancy compared to other specialties. Notwithstanding, core outcome set development frameworks and guidelines are available, several sets are in various stages of development, and there is strong support from international investigator-led collaborations including the International Forum for Acute Care Trialists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.379 | 0.511 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".