Prognosticating Outcomes and Nudging Decisions with Electronic Records in the Intensive Care Unit Trial Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expert recommendations to discuss prognosis and offer palliative options for critically ill patients at high risk of death are variably heeded by intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. How to best promote such communication to avoid potentially unwanted aggressive care is unknown. The PONDER-ICU (Prognosticating Outcomes and Nudging Decisions with Electronic Records in the ICU) study is a 33-month pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial testing the effectiveness of two electronic health record (EHR) interventions designed to increase ICU clinicians' engagement of critically ill patients at high risk of death and their caregivers in discussions about all treatment options, including care focused on comfort. We hypothesize that the quality of care and patient-centered outcomes can be improved by requiring ICU clinicians to document a functional prognostic estimate (intervention A) and/or to provide justification if they have not offered patients the option of comfort-focused care (intervention B). The trial enrolls all adult patients admitted to 17 ICUs in 10 hospitals in North Carolina with a preexisting life-limiting illness and acute respiratory failure requiring continuous mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. Eligibility is determined using a validated algorithm in the EHR. The sequence in which hospitals transition from usual care (control), to intervention A or B and then to combined interventions A + B, is randomly assigned. The primary outcome is hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes include other clinical outcomes, palliative care process measures, and nurse-assessed quality of dying and death.Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03139838).
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 | 0.029 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.109 | 0.017 |
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".