MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403270711 · doi:10.1016/j.chstcc.2024.100100

Association Between Sex and Race and Ethnicity and IV Sedation Use in Patients Receiving Invasive Ventilation

2024· article· en· W4403270711 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Walker, Federico Angriman, Lisa Burry, Leo Anthony Celi, Kirsten M. Fiest, Judy Wawira Gichoya, Alistair E. W. Johnson, Kuan Liu, Sangeeta Mehta, Georgiana Roman-Sarita, Laleh Seyyed-Kalantari, Thanh-Giang T. Vu, Elizabeth L. Whitlock, George Tomlinson, Christopher J. Yarnell

Bibliographic record

VenueCHEST Critical Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of CalgarySinai Health SystemThe Scarborough HospitalYork UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity of California, San FranciscoUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthEmory University
KeywordsIntravenous sedationSedationMedicineRace (biology)Ethnic groupIntravenous drugAnesthesiaFamily medicineSociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: IV sedation is an important tool for managing patients receiving invasive ventilation, yet excess sedation is harmful, and dosing could be influenced by implicit bias.RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the associations between sex or race and ethnicity and sedation practices?STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective single-center cohort study of adults receiving invasive ventilation for $ 24 hours using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care Version IV (2008-2019) database from Boston, Massachusetts.We used a repeated-measures design (4-hour intervals) to study the association between sex (female or male) or race and ethnicity (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White) and sedation outcomes.Sedation outcomes included sedative use (propofol, benzodiazepine, dexmedetomidine) and minimum sedation score.We categorized sedative use as follows: no sedative and then lowest, second, third, and highest quartiles of sedative dose.We adjusted for covariates with multilevel Bayesian proportional odds modeling and reported ORs with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). RESULTS:We studied 6,764 patients: 43% female; 3.5% Asian, 12% Black, 4.5% Hispanic, and 80% White.Benzodiazepines were administered to 2,334 patients (36%).Black patients received benzodiazepines less often and at lower doses than White patients (more benzodiazepine: OR, 0.66; 95% CrI, 0.49-0.92).Propofol was administered to 3,865 patients (57%).Female patients received propofol less often and at lower doses than male patients (more propofol: OR, 0.72; 95% CrI, 0.61-0.86).Dexmedetomidine was administered to 1,439 patients (21%), and use was similar across sex or race and ethnicity.Female patients were less sedated than male patients (deeper sedation: OR, 0.71; 95% CrI, 0.62-0.81),and Black patients were more sedated than White patients (more sedated: OR, 1.28; 95% CrI, 1.05-1.55).INTERPRETATION: Among patients receiving invasive ventilation for at least 24 hours, IV sedation and attained sedation levels varied by sex and by race and ethnicity.Adherence to sedation guidelines may improve equity in sedation management for critically ill 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCHEST Critical CareSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207