Patients’ Dreams and Unreal Experiences During Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Hospitalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the intensive care unit (ICU), patients often experience fragmented memories, primarily comprising dreams and illusions. These experiences can impact psychosocial well-being, correlating with post-traumatic stress symptoms and heightened anxiety. Understanding these phenomena is crucial for holistic care. To systematically explore patients' perspectives concerning the recollection of dreams and unreal encounters during their stay in the ICU, considering pertinent clinical conditions and potential influencing factors, we conducted a comprehensive search in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases until November 20, 2023, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. From an initial pool of 288 records, a thorough screening for eligibility resulted in the inclusion of nine studies for this systematic review. These selected studies underwent evaluation using either the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). All studies categorized dreams into three main types: positive, distressing (including nightmares), and neutral experiences. These were further detailed based on aspects such as time, space, senses, emotions, and distinguishing between reality and unreality. Two studies found associations between dreams and conditions like Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), mental abnormalities, and delirium. In one study, GBS patients had more vivid dreams, hallucinations, and delusions compared to ICU control group patients; delirious patients tend to report more frequent frightening dreams. Patients in the ICU who recalled dreams often had more severe illness, longer stays, and higher ventilation frequency. Notably, a prolonged ICU stay significantly predicted the likelihood of dream recall, as consistently observed in three other studies. This suggests that patients with prolonged ICU stays, experiencing higher dream recall, underwent extended treatments. This systematic exploration of patients' perspectives on fragmented memories underscores the connections between these experiences, clinical conditions such as GBS and delirium, and extended ICU stays. Recognizing and attending to these psychological aspects in post-ICU care is critical for alleviating the enduring emotional consequences for patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".