MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Hospital Free Days and Symptom Burden After Sepsis

2025· article· en· W4410269358 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristin N. Sheehan, Jessica A. Palakshappa, Casey Stephens, C. Danielle Connor, Stephanie Parks Taylor, M. Kowalkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSepsisIntensive care medicineMEDLINEEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: Hospital-free days (HFD, i.e., days spent outside any hospital setting) is a patient-centered outcome used to capture post-discharge morbidity in seriously ill patients, but its relationship with other patient-reported outcomes in sepsis survivors is unknown. We assessed the relationship between HFD and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cognition, post-traumatic stress, and dyspnea 90 days post-discharge in patients with sepsis from pneumonia. Methods: Prospective cohort study of patients admitted with sepsis and pneumonia and enrolled in a sepsis transition recovery trial August 2021-December 2022 at eight hospitals (NCT04495946). Participants completed telephone surveys at 90 days post-discharge. Surveys included the EuroQol Five Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA), Impact of Events Scale (IES-6), and modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC). HFD were extracted from electronic medical records. Participants were categorized into three groups using median (HFD=90) and first quartile (HFD=86) of the HFD distribution. We compared HRQoL and symptom scores between HFD-derived patient groups using analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: 24 survey respondents were analyzed. 90 days post-discharge, 9 patients had experienced 90 HFD (Group A), 8 patients had 87-89 HFD (Group B), and 7 patients had ≤86 HFD days (Group C). Group A was older (median age=71 years, 40 to 78 [versus Group B: 63, 57 to 71; Group C: 60, 51 to 87]), had fewer comorbidities (median Charlson Comorbidity Index=3, 1 to 4 [versus Group B: 4, 2 to 8; Group C: 6, 4 to 7]), and had the lowest SOFA score at trial enrollment (median=3, 2 to 7 [versus Group B: 4, 2 to 4; Group C: 4, 2 to 7]). Nearly all participants in Group B (7/8: 87.5%) had coexisting COPD. Group A reported the highest health utility index score compared to Groups B and C (p=0.01). Group B reported the greatest burden of dyspnea and worst HRQoL (including moderate to severe problems on mobility, usual activities, and pain or discomfort EQ-5D domains, see Table). No significant differences were found in mini-MOCA or IES-6 scores between groups. Conclusions: In this small survey study of hospital sepsis survivors, we observed variation in HRQoL at 90 days. However, we did not find clear associations between HFD and patient-reported HRQoL or other metrics like post-traumatic stress, cognition, and dyspnea. Future studies are needed to assess the impact of comorbidities, index hospital factors, and patient patterns for seeking healthcare on HFD and its association with HRQoL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→