Abstract P-393: ABILITY TO ASSENT IN PEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE RESEARCH: A PROSPECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN OF TWO CANADIAN PICUS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims & Objectives: To determine the number of patients considered not appropriate to approach for assent by the research and healthcare teams within the first 24 hours of pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission. Methods Prospective one-month environmental scan of 2 Canadian academic PICUs. Ninety critically ill children age newborn to 17 years were categorized as appropriate or not appropriate to approach for assent using a standardized assessment (Figure 1) daily for the first 7 days of PICU admission and at PICU discharge. Results At PICU admission, 81% of patients were deemed not appropriate to approach for assent, mostly due to age limitations, influence of psychotropic medications and/or mechanical ventilation (Table 1). Patients considered appropriate to approach on admission generally spent a short (<24 to 48 hours) time in PICU (Figure 2). At PICU discharge, 74% of patients were considered not appropriate to approach, most commonly due to age limitations, developmental delay, mechanical ventilation and/or influence of psychotropic medication. Only 8% of patients considered not approachable at admission become appropriate to approach for assent by PICU discharge. There was good and moderate agreement between study team and care team assessments of potential for assent at admission and discharge respectively. Conclusions Very few patients were considered appropriate to approach for assent during the first 24 hours of PICU admission or by PICU discharge. Those that were considered appropriate to approach were less ill, spent less time in PICU, and were unlikely to be considered for enrolment in pediatric critical care research.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".