MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091935749 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004660

A Core Outcome Set for Pediatric Critical Care*

2020· article· en· W3091935749 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversidade de São PauloJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Core (optical fiber)Set (abstract data type)Critical illnessIntensive care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: More children are surviving critical illness but are at risk of residual or new health conditions. An evidence-informed and stakeholder-recommended core outcome set is lacking for pediatric critical care outcomes. Our objective was to create a multinational, multistakeholder-recommended pediatric critical care core outcome set for inclusion in clinical and research programs. DESIGN: A two-round modified Delphi electronic survey was conducted with 333 invited research, clinical, and family/advocate stakeholders. Stakeholders completing the first round were invited to participate in the second. Outcomes scoring greater than 69% "critical" and less than 15% "not important" advanced to round 2 with write-in outcomes considered. The Steering Committee held a virtual consensus conference to determine the final components. SETTING: Multinational survey. PATIENTS: Stakeholder participants from six continents representing clinicians, researchers, and family/advocates. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall response rates were 75% and 82% for each round. Participants voted on seven Global Domains and 45 Specific Outcomes in round 1, and six Global Domains and 30 Specific Outcomes in round 2. Using overall (three stakeholder groups combined) results, consensus was defined as outcomes scoring greater than 90% "critical" and less than 15% "not important" and were included in the final PICU core outcome set: four Global Domains (Cognitive, Emotional, Physical, and Overall Health) and four Specific Outcomes (Child Health-Related Quality of Life, Pain, Survival, and Communication). Families (n = 21) suggested additional critically important outcomes that did not meet consensus, which were included in the PICU core outcome set-extended. CONCLUSIONS: The PICU core outcome set and PICU core outcome set-extended are multistakeholder-recommended resources for clinical and research programs that seek to improve outcomes for children with critical illness and their families.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.516
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.080 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations124
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207