Long-term health-related quality of life in survivors of sepsis. Short Form 36: A valid and reliable measure of health-related quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the long-term health-related quality of life (HRQL) of survivors of sepsis and to evaluate the reliability and validity of the medical outcomes study Short Form-36 (SF-36) in this population. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: University intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Surviving patients over the age of 17 yrs who met the criteria for the Society of Critical Care Medicine/American College of Chest Physicians definition of sepsis identified through a review of patients admitted to the intensive care unit from 1994 to 1998. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were abstracted from the medical chart. After hospital discharge, the SF-36 and Patrick's Perceived Quality of Life scale were administered by telephone. The SF-36 was readministered 2 wks later. We screened the charts of 109 patients; 78 had a diagnosis of sepsis. Of these, 31 had died, 3 had severe communication problems, 9 refused to participate, and 5 patients could not be located. A total of 30 patients completed the first interview; 26 completed the second. Compared with established norms for the U.S. general population, survivors of sepsis scored significantly lower on the physical functioning, role physical, general health, vitality, and social functioning domains, as well as on the Physical Health Summary Scale. Mean scores on the Mental Health Summary Scale were very similar between the survivors of sepsis and U.S. norms. The SF-36 demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.65 to 0.94) and excellent test-retest stability (intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.75 to 0.97). Both the Physical Health Summary Scale and the Mental Health Summary Scale correlated well with overall Perceived Quality of Life scores (Pearson correlation coefficients 0.45 and 0.56, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term HRQL of survivors of sepsis is significantly lower than that of the general U.S. population. The SF-36 demonstrated good reliability and validity when used to measure HRQL in survivors of sepsis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".