MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062662430 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0b013e328010c7ef

The perspective of families of the critically ill patient: their needs

2006· review· en· W2062662430 on OpenAlex
George Alvarez, Ann S Kirby

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 · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsCalgary General HospitalUniversity of CalgaryRockyview General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritically illPerspective (graphical)MedicineIntensive care unitAnxietyNursingIntensive careFamily centered careCritical illnessUnit (ring theory)PsychiatryIntensive care medicineHealth carePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: An appreciation of a family's difficult experience in dealing with their critically ill loved ones has created the concept of 'family-centered care'. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the needs of the family during their intensive care unit experience. RECENT FINDINGS: Families consistently highlight three major issues that they deem could be improved from their perspective. Increased information about their loved ones, proximity to the patient and a more flexible visiting policy stand out as relevant issues to families. SUMMARY: Medical staff and administrators should recognize that families of critically ill patients have particular needs that help them cope with having their loved ones in an intensive care unit. Simple changes in philosophy and policy would greatly decrease the anxiety these families experience.

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)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.222 · 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