From bedside to beyond: The long-term impact of early mobilization in the ICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in critical care have substantially reduced intensive care unit (ICU) mortality; however, survivors frequently face long-lasting sequelae, including physical disability, cognitive decline, psychological disorders, and impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), collectively known as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). Critical illness weakness (CIW) is a major contributor to the physical dimension of PICS and is associated with adverse short- and long-term outcomes. EM has been proposed as a key non-pharmacological intervention to mitigate CIW, preserve muscle mass and function, and improve patient recovery. Evidence consistently demonstrates that EM is feasible and generally safe in the ICU setting, and that it confers several short-term benefits, including improved functional independence, reduced duration of delirium, and fewer complications such as ventilator-associated pneumonia and venous thromboembolism. However, the impact of EM on long-term outcomes remains uncertain. Meta-analyses and smaller trials suggest that EM may improve patient-reported physical function at 6 months, but large randomized controlled trials and longer follow-up studies have not shown sustained improvements in objective measures of physical performance, cognitive outcomes, or HRQoL. Several factors may account for these discrepancies, including heterogeneity of mobilization protocols, variations in patient selection, limited continuation of rehabilitation after ICU discharge, and the complex multifactorial nature of long-term impairments. Integration of EM with optimal nutrition and multimodal rehabilitation strategies may hold greater promise, but robust evidence is lacking. Overall, while EM remains a cornerstone of ICU rehabilitation with clear short-term benefits, its long-term impact is less certain, underscoring the need for further high-quality, patient-centered research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".