MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007361408 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201904-0816ci

Natural History of Cognitive Impairment in Critical Illness Survivors. A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3007361408 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersLondon Health Sciences Centre
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalCognitionCognitive testEtiologyPhysical therapyPediatricsEmergency medicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term cognitive impairment is common among ICU survivors, but its natural history remains unclear. In this systematic review, we report the frequency of cognitive impairment in ICU survivors across various time points after ICU discharge that were extracted from 46 of the 3,350 screened records. Prior studies used a range of cognitive instruments, including subjective assessments (10 studies), single or screening cognitive test such as Mini-Mental State Examination or Trail Making Tests A and B (23 studies), and comprehensive cognitive batteries (26 studies). The mean prevalence of cognitive impairment was higher with objective rather than subjective assessments (54% [95% confidence interval (CI), 51-57%] vs. 35% [95% CI, 29-41%] at 3 months after ICU discharge) and when comprehensive cognitive batteries rather than Mini-Mental State Examination were used (ICU discharge: 61% [95% CI, 38-100%] vs. 36% [95% CI, 15-63%]; 12 months after ICU discharge: 43% [95% CI, 10-78%] vs. 18% [95% CI, 10-20%]). Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome had higher prevalence of cognitive impairment than mixed ICU patients at ICU discharge (82% [95% CI, 78-86%] vs. 48% [95% CI, 44-52%]). Although some studies repeated tests at more than one time point, the time intervals between tests were arbitrary and dictated by operational limitations of individual studies or chosen cognitive instruments. In summary, the prevalence and temporal trajectory of ICU-related cognitive impairment varies depending on the type of cognitive instrument used and the etiology of critical illness. Future studies should use modern comprehensive batteries to better delineate the natural history of cognitive recovery across ICU patient subgroups and determine which acute illness and treatment factors are associated with better recovery trajectories.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.338 · 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