Relationship Between ICU Length of Stay and Long-Term Mortality for Elderly ICU Survivors*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between length of ICU stay and 1-year mortality for elderly patients who survived to hospital discharge in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of a random sample of Medicare beneficiaries who survived to hospital discharge, with 1- and 3-year follow-up, stratified by the number of days of intensive care and with additional stratification based on receipt of mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. PATIENTS: The cohort included 34,696 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who received intensive care and survived to hospital discharge in 2005. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 34,696 patients who survived to hospital discharge, the mean ICU length of stay was 3.4 days (± 4.5 d). Patients (88.9%) were in the ICU for 1-6 days, representing 58.6% of ICU bed-days. Patients (1.3%) were in the ICU for 21 or more days, but these patients used 11.6% of bed-days. The percentage of mechanically ventilated patients increased with increasing length of stay (6.3% for 1-6 d in the ICU and 71.3% for ≥ 21 d). One-year mortality was 26.6%, ranging from 19.4% for patients in the ICU for 1 day, up to 57.8% for patients in the ICU for 21 or more days. For each day beyond 7 days in the ICU, there was an increased odds of death by 1 year of 1.04 (95% CI, 1.03-1.05) irrespective of the need for mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing ICU length of stay is associated with higher 1-year mortality for both mechanically ventilated and non-mechanically ventilated patients. No specific cutoff was associated with a clear plateau or sharp increase in long-term risk.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".