A multi-scale assessment of the impacts of vegetated buffer strips on surface water quality in southern Illinois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Rationale:</b> Patients who are critically ill and require admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) should receive the same quality of care regardless of their sex. <b>Objectives:</b> To determine, using population data from a multicenter database in Ontario, Canada, whether sex is associated with differences in the use of eight best practices and other interventions during the ICU care of mechanically ventilated women and men. <b>Methods:</b> Using a cohort of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in eight ICUs, our coprimary outcomes were differences in compliance with eight evidence-based practices between women and men (opioid administration, use of continuous sedation or opioids, sedation minimization, spontaneous breathing trials, stress ulcer prophylaxis, deep venous thrombosis [DVT] prophylaxis, physical restraint, and mobilization). All analyses were adjusted for confounders using logistic regression and restricted to patients eligible for each best practice <b>Results:</b> We included 19,070 (11,910 men, 7,160 women) patients who were mechanically ventilated for >4 hours. Men and women had similar opioid administration, sedation minimization, stress ulcer prophylaxis, DVT prophylaxis, and mobilization. Women were less likely to receive continuous infusions of sedation or opioids than men (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.95) and less likely to be physically restrained (adjusted OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89). <b>Conclusions:</b> In this cohort of mechanically ventilated patients, the use of evidence-based practices was similar between women and men, except for a higher use of continuous sedative or opioid infusions and physical restraints in men.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".