MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381884133 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075685

<i>C</i> ritical Care C <i>yc</i> ling to Improve <i>L</i> ower <i>E</i> xtremity Strength (CYCLE): protocol for an international, multicentre randomised clinical trial of early in-bed cycling for mechanically ventilated patients

2023· article· en· W4381884133 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michelle E. Kho, Julie C. Reid, Alexander J. Molloy, Andrew Seely, Jill Rudkowski, Lisa Buckingham, Diane Heels‐Ansdell, Tim Karachi, Alison Fox‐Robichaud, Ian Ball, Karen E. A. Burns, Joseph R. Pellizzari, Christopher Farley, Sue Berney, Amy M. Pastva, Bram Rochwerg, Frédérick D’Aragon, François Lamontagne, Erick Duan, Jennifer Tsang, Patrick Archambault, Shane English, John Muscedere, Karim Serri, Jean‐Éric Tarride, Sangeeta Mehta, Avelino C. Verceles, Brenda Reeve, Heather K. O’Grady, Laurel Kelly, Geoff Strong, Abby Hurd, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemPrograms for Assessment of Technology in Health Research InstituteQueen's UniversityUniversité LavalNiagara Health SystemCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeSt. Michael's HospitalBrantford Energy (Canada)University of TorontoUniversité de SherbrookeWestern UniversityUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversity of OttawaImpactMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Foundation for InnovationAcademic Medical Organization of Southwestern OntarioOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceCanada Research ChairsHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Clinical trialPhysical therapyAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In-bed leg cycling with critically ill patients is a promising intervention aimed at minimising immobility, thus improving physical function following intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. We previously completed a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) which supported the feasibility of a large RCT. In this report, we describe the protocol for an international, multicentre RCT to determine the effectiveness of early in-bed cycling versus routine physiotherapy (PT) in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We report a parallel group RCT of 360 patients in 17 medical-surgical ICUs and three countries. We include adults (≥18 years old), who could ambulate independently before their critical illness (with or without a gait aid), ≤4 days of invasive mechanical ventilation and ≤7 days ICU length of stay, and an expected additional 2-day ICU stay, and who do not fulfil any of the exclusion criteria. After obtaining informed consent, patients are randomised using a web-based, centralised system to either 30 min of in-bed cycling in addition to routine PT, 5 days per week, up to 28 days maximum, or routine PT alone. The primary outcome is the Physical Function ICU Test-scored (PFIT-s) at 3 days post-ICU discharge measured by assessors blinded to treatment allocation. Participants, ICU clinicians and research coordinators are not blinded to group assignment. Our sample size estimate was based on the identification of a 1-point mean difference in PFIT-s between groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: xtremity (CYCLE) is approved by the Research Ethics Boards of all participating centres and Clinical Trials Ontario (Project 1345). We will disseminate trial results through publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03471247 (Full RCT); NCT02377830 (CYCLE Vanguard 46 patient internal pilot).

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.007

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207