MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106325204 · doi:10.1136/adc.83.5.445

Recollection of children following intensive care

2000· article· en· W2106325204 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Playfor

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMidazolamIntensive carePediatric intensive care unitPaediatric intensive care unitIntubationPediatricsIntensive care unitAnesthesiaPsychiatrySedationIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The recollections of critically ill children following discharge from the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) have not previously been described. We have interviewed such children to establish the nature of their recollections. METHODS: Children aged 4 years and above were interviewed following discharge from the PICU at the Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, either in hospital or at home, using a semistructured interview. Their recollections were recorded and interpreted by content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 38 interviews were carried out; 44 specific recollections were reported, the majority being neutral (60%) or positive (25%). Only 15% of recollections were negative. Negative recollections related to aspects of medical care and environmental factors. No child treated with neuromuscular blocking agents remembered any period of therapeutic paralysis. CONCLUSIONS: Children's recollections of PICU are mainly neutral or positive. Mechanically ventilated children sedated with midazolam and morphine remember little of endotracheal intubation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations67
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207