Impact of Critical Illness Polyneuromyopathy in Rehabilitation: A Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Critical illness polyneuromyopathy (CIPNM) increasingly is recognized as a source of disability in patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The prevalence and impact of CIPNM on patients in the rehabilitation setting has not been established. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of at-risk rehabilitation inpatients with evidence of CIPNM and the functional sequelae of this disorder. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Tertiary academic rehabilitation hospital. PATIENTS: Rehabilitation inpatients with a history of ICU admission for at least 72 hours. METHODS: Electrodiagnostic studies were performed to evaluate for axonal neuropathy and/or myopathy in at least one upper and one lower limb. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was prevalence of CIPNM. Secondary outcomes included Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores, rehabilitation length of stay (RLOS), and discharge disposition. RESULTS: A total of 33 participants were enrolled; 70% had evidence of CIPNM. Admission FIM score, discharge FIM, FIM gain, and FIM efficiency were 64.1, 89.9, 25.5, and 0.31 in those with CIPNM versus 78.4, 94.6, 16.1, and 0.33 in those without CIPNM, respectively. Average RLOS was 123 days versus 76 days and discharge to home was 57% versus 90% in the CIPNM and non-CIPNM groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CIPNM is very common in rehabilitation inpatients with a history of ICU admission. It was associated with a lower functional status at rehabilitation admission, but functional improvement was at a similar rate to those without CIPNM. Longer RLOS stay may be required to achieve the same functional level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".