MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2466602958

[Emergency room deaths: 3-month retrospective analysis].

2005· article· en· W2466602958 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Le Conte, Marc Amelineau, David Trewick, Éric Batard

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyEmergency departmentEmergency medicinePediatricsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Determine the characteristics of patients who died in the emergency unit and assess the number for whom care was limited or withdrawn. METHODS: A 3-month single-center retrospective study of all the patients who died in the emergency room. Bivariate analysis was used to compare the clinical characteristics of patients who died despite maximum care (MC) with those for whom care was limited (LC). RESULTS: 84 patients died during the study period: 48 men and 36 women (mean age: 73 +/- 18 years). Half had normal mobility (43 patients, 50%), and 35 (40%) lived at home. Nearly all (72 patients, 72%) had a severe chronic disease. In descending order, death was ascribed to neurological (n = 22, 24%), cardiac (n = 14, 15%), septic (n = 13, 14%) and respiratory (n = 9, 10%) causes. The decision was made to limit or stop active care for 73 patients (84%) and recorded in 48 case files (55%). The principal differences between patients receiving MC and LC were respectively C and D Knaus classification and their age. CONCLUSION: Death is frequent in emergency units and often strikes elderly patients with impaired mobility and severe chronic diseases. The decisions to limit or stop active care are the predominant direct cause, but their modalities warrant further exploration in a prospective study.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→