Families with loved ones on mechanical ventilation in the ICU found a way to face “living with dying”Commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do family members of critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience this life-support technology? Qualitative study using modified grounded theory. A tertiary care, medical-surgical ICU in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 26 people (10 spouses, 14 children, 1 father, and 1 brother-in-law) who were 45–68 years of age (mean age 52 y, 58% men) and had a family member receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Patients (mean age 71 y, 65% men) were admitted to the ICU in the previous 7–13 days (mean 7.5 d) and had an estimated 50% probability of death according to the ICU attending physician; 81% had a medical diagnosis. No patient had a do-not-resuscitate status. Family members participated in in-depth, semistructured interviews (45–60 min) and were asked about their feelings and experiences dealing with loved ones on mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed using grounded theory methods. Living with dying. The …
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".