Referee report. For: Video-augmented vs standard consent in an early ICU cycling feasibility trial: a randomized embedded recruitment trial [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In a trial of early in-bed cycling in critically ill patients, a video demonstrating use of the cycle in addition to verbal description may improve satisfaction with the informed consent process for all persons involved. Methods: A convenience sample of in-person consent encounters for enrolment in TryCYCLE (NCT01885442), a 33-patient pilot study of in-bed cycling with mechanically ventilated patients in an intensive care unit, were recruited. In this study within a trial, using concealed allocation, we randomized consent encounters to a Video or Standard consent approach. Those in the Video group viewed a 2-minute video of a model using in-bed cycling plus the routine verbal description of the study. The Standard group received the routine verbal description only. Patients and/or substitute decision makers (SDMs) were blinded to the study purpose. After each encounter, patients and/or SDMs and the research coordinator submitted written satisfaction and comfort ratings using 7-point scales (higher scores better). We documented consent outcomes and analyzed between group differences with independent group t-tests. Results: We randomized 14 encounters (6 Video, 8 Standard). Ten completed questionnaires (5 in each group) demonstrated no difference in patient and/or SDM satisfaction or comfort between Video or Standard (mean [standard deviation] Satisfaction: 6.8[0.45] vs. 7.0[0] vs. p=0.37; Comfort: 7.0[0] vs. 7.0[0], p>0.99). The research coordinator evaluated all randomized encounters, with no differences between Video or Standard (Satisfaction: 7.0[0] vs. 6.9[0.35], p=0.41; Comfort: 6.7[0.52] vs. 6.9[0.35], p=0.39). All 14 consent encounters enrolled in TryCYCLE. Conclusions: Patient and/or SDM satisfaction and comfort with consent was very high for both the Video and Standard approaches. Further research, including use of videos to portray different study interventions, is needed, including analysis of patient and/or SDM satisfaction, comfort, comprehension, and consent rates. Registration for host trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01885442 , registered on June 25, 2013
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.312 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.494 | 0.119 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".