MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

884

2012· article· en· W2331398610 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ana Igric, Fran Priestap, Wael Haddara, Tina Mele

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitEmergency medicineRetrospective cohort studyIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Critical Care Outreach Teams (CCOT) weredeveloped to improve care of the critically illpatients in areas of the hospital outside of theintensive care unit (ICU). The purpose of our studywas to explore the role of the CCOT team in endof life care at a Canadian tertiary care centre. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that CCOT would play a significant role in end of life discussions. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patientsthat underwent CCOT assessment from January 1st2011 until June 30th 2011. Data was extractedfrom a prospectively collected CCOT database, aswell as patient charts. We sought to determinepatient code status, as well as initiation ofcode status discussions by the CCOT team. For thesubset of patients admitted to the ICU, data wascollected on the incidence of changes in codestatus once in the ICU as well as cause of death. Results: A total of 523 patients were identified forthe study period. CCOT was involved in initiatinga code status discussion in 6 patients (1.15%)and revisited the code status in 51 (9.77%) ofpatients. This was most frequent for patientswith no code status specified in the chart,followed by “No resuscitation”. 124 patients weretransferred to the ICU following CCOT assessment;100 patients were analyzed post admission to theICU. Of these 100 patients, 33 patients died with23 of these deaths as a result of withdrawal oflife support. Thirty patients had a change incode status, within a mean number of 6.8 days(SD 8.8) following admission to ICU. Conclusions: The majority of patients already had a codestatus established prior to CCOT involvement. Forthe subset of patients with the code status of”No Resuscitation” and “Code status notspecified”, CCOT played a larger role in the codestatus discussions. Once admitted to the ICU, themajority of patients had a change in code status,with a large number dying as a result ofwithdrawal of life support. Further data isneeded to establish the reason for the change incode status in the ICU and potentially avoidunnecessary ICU admissions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6290.467

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Medicine→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→