Unplanned Extubations in Pediatric Critical Care: A Case–Control Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to quantify associations between the risk of unplanned extubation and patient-, environment-, and care-related factors in pediatric critical care and to compare outcomes between children who did and did not experience an unplanned extubation. This is a retrospective case–control analysis including patients <18 years who experienced an unplanned extubation during intensive care unit (ICU) admission (2004–2014). Cases were matched by age, duration of mechanical ventilation, and date to control patients (4:1) who were intubated but did not experience an unplanned extubation. Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between unplanned extubations and the abstracted characteristics. We identified 1,601 eligible controls matched to 458 case patients. When adjusted for confounders, eight variables were associated with unplanned extubation: three patient-related factors (previous ICU admission, previous intubation, and the volume of secretions); one environment-related factor (patient room setup); and four care-related factors (intubation route, and the use of sedation, muscle relaxation, and restraints). Patients who had an unplanned extubation had longer length of stay, but lower rate of mortality. This is the largest case–control study identifying variables associated with unplanned extubation in pediatric critical care. Several are potentially modifiable and may provide opportunities to improve quality of care in controlled ICU environments.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it