Sedation and neurodevelopmental outcomes in PICU: Identification of study groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: As little as 30 minutes of exposure to anesthetic and sedative agents may adversely affect the developing brain. Safe, humane management of critically ill infants requires the use of sedative agents, often for prolonged periods. We sought to identify two comparable groups of critical care patients who did or did not receive sedatives, with the aim of designing a long-term neurodevelopment follow-up study. This feasibility study aimed to determine if two comparable groups could be found. METHODS: Infants with respiratory diagnoses having noninvasive ventilation without sedation (Group C) or intubation and ventilation with sedation (Group S) were identified by chart review. Charts of patients fulfilling the above inclusion criteria were searched for exclusion criteria including neurological disease, extreme prematurity, congenital cardiac disease, and genetic anomalies. Data were extracted to score pediatric severity of illness scores (PRISM and PELOD) for each patient. These scores were then compared using the absolute scores and by risk strata. RESULTS: Group S included 33 patients and Group C had 39. The absolute PRISM and PELOD scores were different between groups. Comparing the groups in three risk strata (PRISM greater or less than 5 or 10), there were no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: It is not possible to randomize infants to sedation or no sedation to investigate neurodevelopmental outcomes. This phase of the project aimed to determine the comparability of two groups of PICU patients. These findings indicate that these groups could be enrolled as exposed and control subjects in an outcomes 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".