Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
目的探讨重症监护病房(ICU)幸存者认知损害的发生情况,为临床开展预防及干预工作提供理论依据.方法检索美国国立医学图书馆PubMed、荷兰医学文摘Embase、Cochrane图书馆、科学网(Web of Science)、万方数据、中国知网(CNKI)和中国生物医学文献服务系统(SinoMed)等数据库,从建库至2019年12月发布的有关ICU后认知损害的研究.由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料,并采用Cochrane系统评价手册5.1.0、Newcastle-Ottawa量表(NOS)及美国卫生保健质量和研究机构标准(AHRQ)针对不同类型研究进行质量评价.采用Stata 13.0软件进行Meta分析;采用敏感性分析确定合并效应值的可靠性;采用漏斗图和Egger检验分析文献发表偏倚;采用非参数剪补法评估发表偏倚对结果的影响.结果共纳入35项研究,包括27项前瞻性队列研究、4项回顾性队列研究、2项随机对照试验(RCT)、1项病例对照研究和1项横断面研究;中文文献3篇,英文文献32篇;涵盖13个国家,成功随访ICU幸存者102 504例.文献质量评价结果显示,31项队列研究NOS评分为6~9分,1项病例对照研究NOS评分为9分,2项RCT质量等级为B级;根据AHRQ标准,1项横断面研究设计科学严谨,质量较高.35项研究报告ICU后认知损害总体发生率为2.47%~66.07%;多次随访者选取首次调查数据进行Meta分析,结果显示,合并发生率为38.44%〔95%可信区间(95%CI)为29.32~47.55〕;逐一剔除每项研究进行敏感性分析,合并结果变化不大,说明结果可靠.将纳入文献分别按照不同评价方式、不同患者类型、不同随访时间分组进行亚组分析,结果显示,使用神经心理测验评价ICU后认知损害的合并发生率为31.42%(95%CI为21.82~41.02),使用问卷或量表评价的合并发生率为38.75%(95%CI为29.54~47.96),两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);普通ICU患者ICU后认知损害合并发生率为43.42%(95%CI为30.88~55.95),急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者合并发生率为34.40%(95%CI为23.02~45.79),老年ICU患者合并发生率为12.93%(95%CI为8.48~17.37),3组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);出院1年内、1~4年、5年及以上ICU后认知损害合并发生率分别为43.30%(95%CI为29.47~57.13)、34.21% (95%CI为26.70~41.72)、20.22%(95%CI为4.89~35.55),3组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).漏斗图显示各研究分布不对称,Egger检验结果也提示可能存在发表偏倚(P<0.05);采用非参数剪补法评估发表偏倚对结果的影响,结果显示,剪补前后ICU后认知损害发生率差异较大,提示发表偏倚可能会影响研究结果的稳定性.结论ICU后认知损害的发生率较高,且存在时间较长;由于纳入文献中ICU后认知损害的诊断方法和随访时间差异较大,有待开展评价标准一致、设计严谨的原始研究进一步证实.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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 it