Relationship between premortem and postmortem diagnosis in critically ill bone marrow transplantation patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between the premortem and postmortem diagnosis in critically ill bone marrow transplantation patients Also, to evaluate the appropriateness of the reliance on clinical diagnosis for withdrawal of active treatment decision-making. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two university-affiliated tertiary care medical surgical intensive care units. PATIENTS: Critically ill bone marrow transplantation patients who died in the intensive care unit between November 1,1994, and June 30,1999, and underwent postmortem examination. INTERVENTION: Review of medical records by two independent data extractors. Clinical diagnosis and cause of death in the intensive care unit were compared with the final autopsy report. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Premortem clinical diagnoses were classified according to the Goldman criteria and compared with postmortem findings. Twenty-eight autopsies were done. Ten of 28 (36%) patients had discrepancies uncovered on autopsy; only two discrepancies would have influenced patient management and none would have altered patient outcome. Twenty patients had their active treatment withdrawn and underwent postmortem examination. None of the discrepancies noted would have altered outcome in these patients. CONCLUSION: In the bone marrow transplantation population, there is significant concordance between clinical diagnosis and postmortem findings. Reliance on clinical diagnosis may be valid for withdrawal of active treatment decision-making in these patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".