MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077600824 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0b013e328357cb5e

ICU-acquired weakness

2012· review· en· W2077600824 on OpenAlexaff
Claúdia C. dos Santos, Jane Batt

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeaknessMuscle weaknessIntensive care medicineCritical illnessMyopathyCritical illness polyneuropathyCritically illPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPathologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW) is now recognized as a major complication of critical illness. There is no doubt that ICUAW is prevalent - some might argue ubiquitous - after critical illness, but its true role, the interaction with preexisting nerve and muscle lesions as well as its contribution to long-term functional disability, remains to be elucidated. RECENT FINDINGS: In this article, we review the current state-of-the-art of the basic pathophysiology of nerve and muscle weakness after critical illness and explore the current literature on ICUAW with a special emphasis on the most important mechanisms of weakness. SUMMARY: Variable contributions of structural and functional changes likely contribute to both early and late myopathy and neuropathy, although the specifics of the temporality of both processes, and the influence patient comorbidities, age, and nature of the ICU insult have on them, remain to be determined.

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)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.317
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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