MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084893483 · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1246285

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Surviving Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2010· review· en· W2084893483 on OpenAlexaff
M. Elizabeth Wilcox, Margaret S. Herridge

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineARDSQuality of life (healthcare)Intensive care medicineDistressIntensive care unitInternal medicineClinical psychologyNursingLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have begun to describe the long-term outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) survivors. These patients experience several physical, mental, and psychological morbidities that significantly impair their health-related quality of life (HRQL). Persistent for years after hospital discharge, decrements in functional and neuropsychological outcomes result in lost savings, employment reduction, and a reduction in HRQL among survivors and their caregivers. Future research should focus on the early identification of patients and their family members at risk for long-term sequelae, the mechanisms of injury leading to long-term ARDS consequences, and therapeutic modalities designed to prevent or decrease these morbidities. Clinicians, caregivers, and patients should be made aware of the deleterious long-term effects of the intensive care unit stay because they are currently poorly recognized and potentially modifiable.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations53
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207