Design and rationale of the Post-Intensive Care Syndrome – paediatrics (PICS-p) Longitudinal Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) mortality declines, there is growing recognition of the morbidity experienced by children surviving critical illness and their families. A comprehensive understanding of the adverse physical, cognitive, emotional and social sequelae common to PICU survivors is limited, however, and the trajectory of recovery and risk factors for morbidity remain unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: paediatrics Longitudinal Cohort Study will evaluate child and family outcomes over 2 years following PICU discharge and identify child and clinical factors associated with impaired outcomes. We will enrol 750 children from 30 US PICUs during their first PICU hospitalisation, including 500 case participants experiencing ≥3 days of intensive care that include critical care therapies (eg, mechanical ventilation, vasoactive infusions) and 250 age-matched, sex-matched and medical complexity-matched control participants experiencing a single night in the PICU with no intensive care therapies. Children, parents and siblings will complete surveys about health-related quality of life, physical function, cognitive status, emotional health and peer and family relationships at multiple time points from baseline recall through 2 years post-PICU discharge. We will compare outcomes and recovery trajectories of case participants to control participants, identify risk factors associated with poor outcomes and determine the emotional and social health consequences of paediatric critical illness on parents and siblings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethical approval from the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board (protocol #843844). Our overall objective is to characterise the ongoing impact of paediatric critical illness to guide development of interventions that optimise outcomes among children surviving critical illness and their families. Findings will be presented at key disciplinary meetings and in peer-reviewed publications at fixed data points. Published manuscripts will be added to our public study website to ensure findings are available to families, clinicians and researchers. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04967365.
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 | 0.066 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".