Baseline quality of life before intensive care: A comparison of patient versus proxy responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare acute lung injury patients' self-reported, retrospective baseline quality of life before their intensive care hospitalization with population norms and retrospective proxy estimates. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using the Short Form 36 quality-of-life survey. SETTING: Thirteen intensive care units at four teaching hospitals in Baltimore, Maryland. PATIENTS: One hundred thirty-six acute lung injury survivors and their designated proxies. INTERVENTIONS: Both patients and proxies were asked to estimate patient baseline quality of life before hospital admission using the Short Form 36 survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compared with population norms, quality-of-life scores were lower in acute lung injury patients across all eight domains, but the difference was significantly greater than the minimum clinically important difference in only two of eight domains (Physical Role and General Health). The mean paired difference between patient and proxy responses revealed no clinically important difference. However, kappa statistics demonstrated only fair to moderate agreement for all domains. Bland-Altman analysis revealed that, for all domains, proxies tended to overestimate quality of life when patient scores were low and underestimate the quality of life when patient scores were high. CONCLUSION: Retrospective assessment of quality of life before hospitalization revealed that acute lung injury patients' scores were consistently lower than population norms, but the magnitude of this difference may not be clinically important. Proxy assessments had only fair to moderate agreement with patient assessments. Across all eight Short Form 36 quality-of-life domains, proxy responses represented an attenuation of patient quality-of-life estimates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.321 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".