MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-term outcomes after critical illness

2002· review· en· W2039139093 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret S. Herridge

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritical illnessIntensive care medicineIntervention (counseling)ARDSRespiratory illnessAcute respiratory distressAcute illnessIllness severityTerm (time)Critically illSeverity of illnessPsychiatryRespiratory systemInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical illness is a severe and generalized monophasic event, and it is likely that there will be evidence of compromised reserve in all end organs if one looks hard enough for it. The crucial issues are to understand which end organs are the most vulnerable to this insult, in which organ systems the incremental disability is of the most functional consequence, and how to design an effective intervention to ameliorate the dysfunction. The long-term morbidity in survivors of critical illness is likely multifactorial. Studies of survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have shown that there are both long-term physical and neuropsychological consequences of severe illness. We need to gain a better understanding of the specific determinants of patients' inability to resume their prior work/lifestyle so that an appropriate multidisciplinary intervention can be designed and tested.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207