MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802075166 · doi:10.3917/rsi.132.0038

Rappel explicite d’une ventilation mécanique : une analyse conceptuelle

2018· article· fr· W2802075166 on OpenAlexaff
Mylène Michaud, Marilou Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherche en soins infirmiers · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCanadian Nurses Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallPhenomenonAnxietyCognitive psychologySedationPsychologyMechanical ventilationPsychotherapistAnesthesiaMedicinePsychiatryEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit requires the use of medication to reduce pain, discomfort, anxiety, and agitation. An explicit recall refers to the phenomenon where the person remembers the perceptions that occurred under sedation during mechanical ventilation. Severe psychological consequences may occur as a result of an explicit recall. This phenomenon is not well-defined and there is no common language in the literature. A conceptual analysis was carried out using Rodgers' evolutionary method in order to clarify the concept of explicit recall. A total of sixty-eight articles were analyzed interdisciplinarily. The results indicate that an explicit recall occurs following treatment, requiring anesthesia or sedation, and the response to medication varies according to individual characteristics. The explicit recall is defined as perceptive, interpretative, subjective, dynamic, and temporal. Following an explicit recall, the psychological trajectory has various psychological consequences that can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherche en soins infirmiersSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207