MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sleep disruption in the intensive care unit

2001· review· en· W2080044055 on OpenAlex

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 · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSleep (system call)Intensive care unitIntensive care medicineCritically illIntensive careEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subjective and objective measures of sleep quality indicate that the sleep of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is extraordinarily disturbed. Several studies spanning the past two decades have demonstrated that critically ill patients exhibit reduced sleep efficiency, reduced restorative sleep, and frequent arousals and awakenings. A number of potential sleep disrupters exist in the ICU environment, with noise being the predominant focus of investigation. Excessive noise levels in the ICU correlate with poor sleep quality in healthy subjects and patients. Medications, light, and frequent care-related activities can also interfere with a patient's ability to obtain good-quality sleep. Sleep disruption can have significant adverse consequences for critically ill patients, such as immune system compromise and respiratory abnormalities. Although several questions remain unanswered, including the impact of sleep disruption on the clinical outcome of patients in the ICU, there is a growing interest in developing new strategies to improve sleep quality.

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)0.021
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.248 · 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