P0484 / #1608: A CORE OUTCOME SET FOR PEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE RESEARCH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims & Objectives: To create a multinational, multi-stakeholder informed Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) Core Outcome Set (COS). Methods: Outcomes were informed by a scoping review of post-hospital discharge PICU outcomes, interviews of children and families who experienced critical illness, and other resources. Outcomes and corresponding definitions were reviewed by the Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network’s Family Network Collaborative and an international steering committee (ISC). Participants (n=333) were recruited by the ISC and represented research, clinical, and family/advocate stakeholder groups. Participants in this IRB-approved, modified Delphi survey scored each outcome as not important, important not critical, or critical. Outcomes with ≥ 69% critical and ≤ 15% not important advanced to round 2 with write in outcomes considered. The ISC held an electronic consensus conference to determine the final PICU COS. Results: Overall response rates were 75% and 85% for each round. Participants voted on 7 global and 45 specific outcomes in Round 1, and 6 global and 30 specific outcomes in Round 2. Using Overall (3 stakeholder groups combined) results, consensus was defined as outcomes with < 15% “not important” and > 90% “critical” and were included in the final PICU COS: 4 global (Cognitive, Emotional, Physical and Overall Health) and 4 subdomains (Child Health-Related Quality of Life, Pain, Survival, and Communication) (Table). Families (n=21) suggested additional critically important outcomes that did not meet consensus now included in the PICU COS - Extended (Table).Conclusions: A PICU COS was created for implementation into research to assess post-PICU outcomes.
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 | 0.108 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".