MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963357169 · doi:10.1186/cc3289

Multimodal strategies to improve APACHE II score documentation

2005· article· de· W1963357169 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Donahoe, Michelle E. Kho, Ellen McDonald, Margaret Maclennan, Sandra McIntyre, Péter Varga

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2005
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The APACHE II score is used widely in the ICU setting. In our phase I study [ 1 ], APACHE II scores collected by an expert research coordinator and two research clerks were reliable (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.90, lower 95% confidence interval [L-95% CI] = 0.85). However, we found substantial variability in the Chronic Health Index (CHI) (0.67, L-95% CI = 0.53) and Glasgow Coma Scale, verbal component (GCS-V) (0.42, L-95% CI = 0.25). To improve the reliability of the APACHE II score, we conducted phase II, aimed at changing the behaviour of ICU clinicians who are involved in documenting the APACHE II score in practice. To educate ICU clinicians regarding two specific components of the APACHE II score with suboptimal reliability: CHI and GCS-V.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.385 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207