Investigator-led clinical research consortia: The Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in the care of critically ill patients are dependent upon rigorous clinical research undertaken to characterize natural history and risk factors, and determine optimal approaches to the management of the diseases of the critically ill patient. The Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (CCCTG) was formed in 1989 to foster such research. It has grown to become a national, multidisciplinary organization with more than 100 members, and more than 3 dozen active research programs. Its members have been highly successful in obtaining funding for, completing, and publishing well-designed studies that have informed international practice in areas such as transfusion, stress ulcer prophylaxis, long term outcomes from acute respiratory distress syndrome, diagnosis and management of infection in the intensive care unit, and end-of-life care. In the process, the CCCTG has developed a highly effective culture of scientific mentoring, and has served as a model for investigator-led critical care research groups around the world. This review summarizes the history, activities, approaches, and challenges of the CCCTG, in the conviction that investigator-led groups such as ours represent the future of intensive care unit-based research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".