Association Between Inability to Stand at ICU Discharge and Readmission: A Historical Cohort Study*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if being unable to stand at ICU discharge was associated with an increased probability of ICU readmission. DESIGN: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Toronto Intensive Care Observational Registry (iCORE) project. SETTING: Nine tertiary academic ICUs in Toronto, Canada, affiliated with the University of Toronto. PATIENTS: All patients admitted to ICUs participating in iCORE from September 2014 to January 2020 were included. Patients had to be mechanically ventilated for more than 4 hours to be included in iCORE. Exclusion criteria were death during the initial ICU stay, transfer to another institution not included in iCORE at ICU discharge, and a short ICU stay defined as less than 2 days. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main exposure in this study was the inability of the patient to stand at ICU discharge, documented daily in the database within the ICU Mobility Scale. The primary outcome of this study was readmission to the ICU. After adjusting for potential confounders, being unable to stand at ICU discharge was associated with increased odds of readmission (odds ratio, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.31-2.62; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an ICU stay of 2 days or more, being unable to stand at ICU discharge is associated with increased odds of readmission to the ICU.
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 | 0.001 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".