Se souvenir des soins intensifs : un protocole d’étude mixte prospective sur les perspectives et l’acceptabilité du journal de bord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Intensive care units (ICUs) cater for the most critically ill patients. On discharge, these patients may be left with several incapacitating sequelae. This combination of physical, cognitive, and psychological symptoms is known as Post-Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS). Relatives may also suffer from a form of PICS (Post Intensive Care Syndrome – Family [PICS-F]). A diary could help reduce the mental health symptoms of PICS or PICS-F. This document, containing narrative information about the patient’s stay in the ICU, aims to fill in the gaps in the patient’s memory and to contextualize disturbing memories, which are thought to be at the root of psychological suffering. This preventive intervention remains underused or studied in Quebec (Canada). Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the acceptability of the ICU diary in 2 Quebec ICUs by patients discharged from the designated ICU, relatives, nurses, and members of the multidisciplinary team. A second objective will be to explore the recommendations of those stakeholders surrounding the modalities of the intervention. Methods: This mixed-methods study will take place on 2 ICUs in a tertiary hospital located in Quebec City. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with 4 groups of 6 to 8 participants representing the stakeholders of the intervention. An acceptability questionnaire will be administered to participants. Discussion and Research Spin-offs: This study will guide the application of this intervention and advocates active participant involvement in the development of the tool.
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 | 0.156 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 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".