MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953767523 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028237

Diarrhoea: interventions, consequences and epidemiology in the intensive care unit (DICE-ICU): a protocol for a prospective multicentre cohort study

2019· article· en· W2953767523 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joanna C. Dionne, Kristen Sullivan, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Alyson Takaoka, Erick Duan, Waleed Alhazzani, John W. Devlin, Matthew S. Duprey, Paul Moayyedi, David Armstrong, Lehana Thabane, Jennifer Tsang, Roman Jaeschke, Cindy Hamielec, Tim Karachi, Rodrigo Cartin‐Ceba, John Muscedere, Mohammed Alshahrani

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalPopulation Health Research InstituteNiagara Health SystemMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityImpact
FundersRegional Medical Associates of HamiltonPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationCanadian Association of GastroenterologyCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsMedicineEpidemiologyIntensive care unitProtocol (science)Psychological interventionProspective cohort studyCohort studyIntensive care medicineDiceEmergency medicineCohortInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Diarrhoea is a frequent concern in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, increased length of ICU stay, skin breakdown and renal dysfunction. However, its prevalence, aetiology and prognosis in the critically ill have been poorly studied. The primary objectives of this study are to determine the incidence, risk factors and consequences of diarrhoea in critically ill adults. The secondary objectives are to estimate the incidence of Clostridium difficile- associated diarrhoea (CDAD) in ICU patients and to validate the Bristol Stool Chart and Bliss Stool Classification System characterising bowel movements in the ICU. Our primary outcome is the incidence of diarrhoea . Our secondary outcomes include: CDAD, ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. Methods and analysis This international prospective cohort study will enrol patients over 10 weeks in 12 ICUs in Canada, the USA, Poland and Saudi Arabia. We will include all patients 18 years of age and older who are admitted to the ICU for at least 24 hours and follow them daily until ICU discharge. Our primary outcome is the incidence of diarrhoea based on the WHO definition, during the ICU stay. Our secondary outcomes include: CDAD, ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. We will use logistic regression to identify factors associated with diarrhoea (as defined using WHO criteria) and the kappa statistic to measure agreement on diarrhoea rates between the WHO definition and the Bristol Stool Chart and Bliss Stool Classification System. Ethics and dissemination The protocol has been approved by the research ethics board of all participating centres. The diarrhoea interventions, consequences and epidemiology in the intensive care unit (DICE-ICU) study will generate evidence about diarrhoea and its frequency, predisposing factors and consequences, to inform critical care practice and future research. Lay summary Diarrhoea is a frequent clinical problem for hospitalised patients including those who are critically ill in the ICU. Diarrhoea can cause complications such as skin damage, dehydration and kidney problems. It is not clear how common diarrhoea is in the ICU, the factors that cause it or the best way for clinicians to assess it. The DICE-ICU study is an international prospective observational study to examine the frequency, risk factors and outcomes of diarrhoea during critical illness.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.007

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207