ICU-acquired weakness, diaphragm dysfunction and long-term outcomes of critically ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness and diaphragm dysfunction are frequent conditions, both associated with poor prognosis in critically ill patients. While it is well established that ICU-acquired weakness severely impairs long-term prognosis, the association of diaphragm dysfunction with this outcome has never been reported. This study investigated whether diaphragm dysfunction is associated with negative long-term outcomes and whether the coexistence of diaphragm dysfunction and ICU-acquired weakness has a particular association with 2-year survival and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: O and ICU-acquired weakness was defined by Medical Research Council (MRC) score < 48. HRQOL was evaluated with the SF-36 questionnaire. RESULTS: Sixty-nine of the 76 patients enrolled in the original study were included in the survival analysis and 40 were interviewed. Overall 2-year survival was 67% (46/69): 64% (29/45) in patients with diaphragm dysfunction, 71% (17/24) in patients without diaphragm dysfunction, 46% (11/24) in patients with ICU-acquired weakness and 76% (34/45) in patients without ICU-acquired weakness. Patients with concomitant diaphragm dysfunction and ICU-acquired weakness had a poorer outcome with a 2-year survival rate of 36% (5/14) compared to patients without diaphragm function and ICU-acquired weakness [79% (11/14) (p < 0.01)]. Health-related quality of life was not influenced by the presence of ICU-acquired weakness, diaphragm dysfunction or their coexistence. CONCLUSIONS: ICU-acquired weakness but not diaphragm dysfunction was associated with a poor 2-year survival of critically ill patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".