Intensive care unit admission in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of, and mortality after, intensive care unit (ICU) admission as well as the characteristics of critical illness in the multiple sclerosis (MS) population vs the general population. METHODS: We used population-based administrative data from the Canadian province of Manitoba for the period 1984 to 2010 and clinical data from 93% of admissions to provincial high-intensity adult ICUs. We identified 5,035 prevalent cases of MS and a cohort from the general population matched 5:1 on age, sex, and region of residence. We compared these populations using incidence rates and multivariable regression models adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: From January 2000 to October 2009, the age- and sex-standardized annual incidence of ICU admission among prevalent cohorts was 0.51% to 1.07% in the MS population and 0.34% to 0.51% in matched controls. The adjusted risk of ICU admission was higher for the MS population (hazard ratio 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.75) than for matched controls. The MS population was more likely to be admitted for infection than the matched controls (odds ratio 1.82; 95% CI 1.10-1.32). Compared with the matched controls admitted to ICUs, 1-year mortality was higher in the MS population (relative risk 2.06; 95% CI 1.32-3.07) and was particularly elevated in patients with MS who were younger than 40 years (relative risk 3.77; 95% CI 1.45-8.11). Causes of death were MS (9.3%), infections (37.0%), and other causes (52.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the general population, the risk of ICU admission is higher in MS, and 1-year mortality after admission is higher. Greater attention to preventing infection and managing comorbidity is needed in the MS population.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".