MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994929672 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000000160

Acute Rehabilitation Practices in Critically Ill Children

2014· article· en· W1994929672 on OpenAlex
Karen Choong, Gary Foster, Douglas D. Fraser, James S. Hutchison, Ari R. Joffe, Philippe Jouvet, Kusum Menon, Eleanor Pullenayegum, Roxanne Ward

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioStollery Children's HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHospital for Sick ChildrenCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeRehabilitationPsychological interventionRetrospective cohort studyPhysical therapyIntensive care unitPediatric intensive care unitAcute careEmergency medicineCohort studyIntensive care medicineHealth careSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate acute rehabilitation practices in pediatric critical care units across Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Six Canadian, tertiary care pediatric critical care units. PATIENTS/SUBJECTS: Six hundred children aged under 17 years admitted to pediatric critical care unit during a winter and summer month of 2011 with a greater than 24-hour length of stay. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome of interest was the nature and timing of pediatric critical care unit rehabilitation practices.Rehabilitation was classified according to mobility and nonmobility interventions. Predictors of mobilization and the time to mobilization were evaluated through regression and time-dependent survival analyses, respectively. The most common form of rehabilitation provided in pediatric critical care unit was physical therapy (45.5% patients) followed by occupational therapy (4.5%) and speech and language therapy (1.5%). Interventions were primarily nonmobility in nature (69.7% of sessions), most frequently in the form of chest physiotherapy (42.7% of sessions). The median time to mobilization was 2 days (interquartile range, 1-6) as compared with 1 day for nonmobility interventions (interquartile range, 1-3). Only 57 patients (9.5%) received early mobilization. Regression analyses revealed that increasing age, admission during winter, neuromuscular blockade, and sedative infusions were associated with an increased likelihood of receiving mobility therapy. Increasing age was a predictor of early mobilization, while neuromuscular blockade was associated with delayed mobilization. No significant differences in adverse events were found between nonmobility and mobility interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Only half of the children receive rehabilitation while in the pediatric critical care unit, and when it occurs, therapy is primarily focused on respiratory function. Mobilization appears to be reserved for at-risk children who were muscle relaxed and sedated; however, its implementation in these patients is delayed. Future pediatric-specific research is essential to identify patients at risk and to understand treatment priorities and rehabilitation strategies to improve functional recovery in critically ill children.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.368
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.368
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.334 · 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