PO-0314 Admission Of Paediatric Patients To Adult Intensive Care Units In Normandy From 2008 To 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims Paediatric intensive care units (PICU) are expected to admit every paediatric patient (age < 18 years) with organ failure. Nevertheless, some of these patients are hospitalised in an adult ICUs (AICU). The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the paediatric patients admitted to AICUs in Normandy with those admitted to PICU. Methods A retrospective study was conducted from January 1st 2008 to December 31st 2010. Every paediatric patient admitted to an ACIU in Normandy was included (AICU group). The AICU group was compared to the paediatric patients admitted to the PICU of the regional university hospital of Caen between January and December 2010 (PICU group). Planned admissions from a treating PICU physician and transfers from neonatology were excluded. Results 118 AICU stays were compare to 346 PICU stays. Mean age was higher in the AICU group (16,2 ± 1,8 vs 6,5 ± 6,4, p < 0,001). The AICU group were subject to more invasive monitoring (4,2% vs 0,3%, p = 0,005), intubation (34,8% vs 25,1%, p = 0,044) and vasoactive agents (12,7% vs 6,7%, p = 0,035). When controlled for age (13–18 years) no statistical difference was observed. Discharge planning was better in the PICU group (p < 0,001). Conclusion Given that most paediatric AICU patients were teenagers, the medical care was comparable in between ACIU and PICU. Follow-up care, however, was better planned for PICU patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".