MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284116306 · doi:10.1186/2197-425x-3-s1-a224

Physician recognition and documentation of sepsis. a comparison of the 2001 accp/sccm consensus conference definitions and physician documented diagnosis

2015· article· en· W2284116306 on OpenAlexafffundabout
RJ Jolley, DW Yergens, Hude Quan, C.j Doig

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine Experimental · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineDocumentationSepsisMedical recordCoding (social sciences)Health careIntensive care medicineDiagnosis codeMedical emergencyIncidence (geometry)MEDLINEQuality managementFamily medicineOperations managementInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To compare cases of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock that were identified through a reference standard medical record review using the 2001 ACCP/SCCM consensus criteria definitions [ 1 ] versus physician documented cases. Retrospective cohort study in which the medical records of ICU patients from three tertiary care centres in Calgary, Canada from years 2009-2012 were randomly selected and linked to an administrative discharge abstract database and ICU clinical database. Patient demographics and clinical information including a diagnosis of sepsis according to a checklist following the ACCP/SCCM 2001 consensus definition criteria, as well as whether the terms, 'sepsis', 'severe sepsis' or 'septic shock' were documented in the physician progress notes (physician 'explicit stated diagnosis) in the patient chart were collected. Summary statistics, frequencies and percentages were calculated. Out of 945 ICU patient medical records reviewed, 583 patients (61.7%) were classified as having sepsis and 362 (38.3%) were classified as not having sepsis according to the 2001 ACCP/SCCM consensus definition. Of these 85 met criteria for sepsis, 195 for severe sepsis, and 303 met criteria for septic shock. According to the physician 'explicit' stated diagnosis, 382 out of 945 (40.42%) patients had one of the terms, 'sepsis', 'severe sepsis' or 'septic shock' documented in the chart. Multiple diagnosis terms were used in 52.3% of physician identified cases. Of the 583 cases identified by the consensus definition only 390 of these cases (64.6%) were documented by physicians (sepsis = 5.2%, severe sepsis = 23.8% and septic shock = 69.4%). In physician documented cases, 36.1% had mean SOFA scores >11, 63.9% had APACHE score>20 and 74.6% had a microbiologically confirmed infection. These results suggest that a diagnosis of sepsis is poorly documented in medical records which may be reflective of the ability of a physician to recognize less severe forms of sepsis. Factors affecting physician documentation and diagnosis must be further studied to understand the impact on data quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care Medicine ExperimentalSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207