Caring for Critically Ill Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in a PICU: Recommendations by Dual Trained Intensivists*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the midst of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, which causes coronavirus disease 2019, there is a recognized need to expand critical care services and beds beyond the traditional boundaries. There is considerable concern that widespread infection will result in a surge of critically ill patients that will overwhelm our present adult ICU capacity. In this setting, one proposal to add "surge capacity" has been the use of PICU beds and physicians to care for these critically ill adults. DESIGN: Narrative review/perspective. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The virus's high infectivity and prolonged asymptomatic shedding have resulted in an exponential growth in the number of cases in the United States within the past weeks with many (up to 6%) developing acute respiratory distress syndrome mandating critical care services. Coronavirus disease 2019 critical illness appears to be primarily occurring in adults. Although pediatric intensivists are well versed in the care of acute respiratory distress syndrome from viral pneumonia, the care of differing aged adult populations presents some unique challenges. In this statement, a team of adult and pediatric-trained critical care physicians provides guidance on common "adult" issues that may be encountered in the care of these patients and how they can best be managed in a PICU. CONCLUSIONS: This concise scientific statement includes references to the most recent and relevant guidelines and clinical trials that shape management decisions. The intention is to assist PICUs and intensivists in rapidly preparing for care of adult coronavirus disease 2019 patients should the need arise.
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 | 0.022 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".