MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318752613 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0000000000000146

Default options in the ICU

2014· review· en· W2318752613 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna L. Hart, Scott D. Halpern

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Economics
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsDefaultMedicineHarmPsychological interventionHealth careUnintended consequencesQuality managementQuality (philosophy)Risk analysis (engineering)MEDLINEIntensive care medicineActuarial scienceBusinessNursingService (business)MarketingEconomicsFinancePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Default options dramatically influence the behavior of decision makers and may serve as effective decision support tools in the ICU. Their use in medicine has increased in an effort to improve efficiency, reduce errors, and harness the potential of healthcare technology. RECENT FINDINGS: Defaults often fall short of their predicted influence when employed in critical care settings as quality improvement interventions. Investigations reporting the use of defaults are often limited by variations in the relative effect across sites. Preimplementation experiments and long-term monitoring studies are lacking. SUMMARY: Defaults in the ICU may help or harm patients and clinical efficiency depending on their format and use. When constructing and encountering defaults, providers should be aware of their powerful and complex influences on decision making. Additional evaluations of the appropriate creation of healthcare defaults and their resulting intended and unintended consequences are needed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.334
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207