Patient-reported outcomes in research on critically ill obstetric patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Research benefits from the incorporation of patient-important outcomes. We interviewed individuals after a critical illness during pregnancy to identify outcomes for the development of a core outcome set (COS). Methods Participants were identified through intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in Toronto, Canada, and Barranquilla, Colombia. Interviewers used a semi-structured guide, and discussions were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts underwent inductive thematic analysis to delineate themes and patient-important outcomes. Results Twelve individuals were interviewed. Twenty-six patient-important outcomes were elicited, which represented the core outcome areas of mortality ( n = 1), physiological/clinical outcomes ( n = 7), functioning and life impact ( n = 13), resource use ( n = 4) and adverse events ( n = 1). These related to five identified themes of mental well-being, quality of care delivered, clinicians’ communication, regaining functional independence and mother–newborn separation. Conclusions This qualitative study identified patient-important outcomes from persons with lived experience of critical illness in pregnancy which will inform the development of a COS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".