Incidence of near-death experiences in patients surviving a prolonged critical illness and their long-term impact: a prospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: So far, the few prospective studies on near-death experience (NDE) were carried out only in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with homogeneous aetiologies, such as cardiac arrest or trauma survivors. The aims of this 1-year prospective and monocentric study were to investigate the incidence of NDE in ICU survivors (all aetiologies) as well as factors that may affect its frequency, and to assess quality of life up to 1 year after enrolment. METHODS: We enrolled adults with a prolonged ICU stay (> 7 days). During the first 7 days after discharge, all eligible patients were assessed in a face-to-face interview for NDE using the Greyson NDE scale, dissociative experiences using the Dissociative Experience Scale, and spirituality beliefs using the WHOQOL-SRPB. Medical parameters were prospectively collected. At 1-year after inclusion, patients were contacted by phone to measure quality of life using the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. RESULTS: Out of the 126 included patients, 19 patients (15%) reported having experienced a NDE as identified by the Greyson NDE scale (i.e. cut-off score ≥ 7/32). In univariate analyses, mechanical ventilation, sedation, analgesia, reason for admission, primary organ dysfunction, dissociative and spiritual propensities were associated with the emergence of NDE. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only the dissociative and spiritual propensity strongly predicted the emergence of NDE. One year later (n = 61), the NDE was not significantly associated with quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The recall of NDE is not so rare in the ICU. In our cohort, cognitive and spiritual factors outweighed medical parameters as predictors of the emergence of NDE. Trial registration This trial was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov in February 2020 ( NCT04279171 ).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".