MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414057562 · doi:10.5737/23688653-36224

Caregiver needs in and after the ICU: A call to action for critical care nurses

2025· article· en· W4414057562 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Angie Grewal, Carmel Montgomery

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œCanadian journal of critical care nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBrock UniversityRéseau de recherche portant sur les interventions en sciences infirmières du Québec
KeywordsCall to actionIntensive care unitAction (physics)Health careMental healthFamily caregiversMental illnessSocial support

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite increasing illness severity and patient complexity, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality continue to decline (Prescott et al., 2024). At the same time, the long-term physical, cognitive, and mental health challenges experienced by ICU survivors are becoming better understood and more frequently recognized as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS; Needham et al., 2012; Schwitzer et al., 2023). In contrast, the experiences and needs of family members, who often transition into unpaid caregiving roles after discharge, remain underrecognized in the ICU setting. These family caregivers frequently experience post-intensive care syndrome–family (PICS-F), a cluster of emotional, psychological, physical, and social symptoms that can impair their health and caregiving capacity (Davidson et al., 2012).

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.009
Scholarly communication0.0120.021
Open science0.0060.017
Research integrity0.0300.041
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œCanadian journal of critical care nursingSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207