MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318069169 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000850

Characteristics of Mid-Term Post-Intensive Care Syndrome in Patients Attending a Follow-Up Clinic: A Prospective Comparison Between COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Survivors

2023· article· en· W4318069169 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne‐Françoise Rousseau, Camille Colson, Pauline Minguet, Isabelle Kellens, Maxine Collard, Camille Vancraybex, Julien Guiot, Bernard Lambermont, Benoît Misset

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineIntensive careProspective cohort studyBetacoronavirusTerm (time)Coronavirus InfectionsPediatricsIntensive care medicineVirologyInternal medicineOutbreakDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: At present, it is not clear if critically ill COVID-19 survivors have different needs in terms of follow-up compared with other critically ill survivors, and thus if duplicated post-ICU trajectories are mandatory. OBJECTIVES: To compare the post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) of COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19 (NC) survivors referred to a follow-up clinic at 3 months (M3) after ICU discharge. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults who survived an ICU stay greater than or equal to 7 days and attended the M3 consultation were included in this observational study performed in a post-ICU follow-up clinic of a single tertiary hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients underwent a standardized assessment, addressing health-related quality of life (3-level version of EQ-5D), sleep disorders (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI]), physical status (Barthel index, handgrip and quadriceps strengths), mental health disorders (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Impact of Event Scale-Revised [IES-R]), and cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA]). RESULTS: A total of 143 survivors (86 COVID and 57 NC) attended the M3 consultation. Their median age and severity scores were similar. NC patients had a shorter ICU stay (10 d [8–17.2 d]) compared with COVID group (18 d [10.8–30 d]) ( p = 0.001). M3 outcomes were similar in the two groups, except for a higher PSQI ( p = 0.038) in the COVID group (6 [3–9.5]) versus NC group (4 [2–7]), and a slightly lower Barthel index in the NC group (100 [100–100]) than in the COVID group (100 [85–100]) ( p = 0.026). However, the proportion of patients with abnormal values at each score was similar in the two groups. Health-related quality of life was similar in the two groups. The three MoCA (≥ 26), IES-R (<33), and Barthel (=100) were normal in 58 of 143 patients (40.6%). In contrast, 68.5% (98/143) had not returned to their baseline level of daily activities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In our follow-up clinic at 3 months after discharge, the proportion of patients presenting alterations in the main PICS domains was similar whether they survived a COVID-19 or another critical illness, despite longer ICU stay in COVID group. Cognition and sleep were the two most affected PICS domains.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ExplorationsSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207