MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-term outcomes after critical illness

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

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.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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