MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W86216631 · doi:10.52964/amja.0404

Trends in weighted vital signs and the clinical course of 44,531 acutely ill medical patients while in hospital

2015· article· en· W86216631 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Kellett, Alan Murray, Simon Woodworth, Wendy Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueAcute Medicine Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVital signsMedicineEarly warning scoreWarning signsRespiratory rateEmergency medicineSign (mathematics)PediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicineHeart rateSurgeryBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: little is known about the changes and trends of individual vital signs during the course of acute illness in hospital. METHODS: the weighted points of the VitalPAC Early Warning Score (ViEWS) were assigned to each vital sign value measured on 44,531 acutely ill medical patients while they were hospitalized in the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Ontario, Canada. These ViEWS weighted vital signs were averaged for every 24 hour period for five days after admission and five days before death or discharge and then combined to obtain an approximation of the trajectory of each vital sign while in hospital. RESULTS: compared with the other vital signs, the ViEWS weighted points for respiratory rate increase the most in patients who died in hospital and decrease the most in survivors. Combining respiratory rate with the weighted points for any of the other vital signs reduced rather than increased their monitoring performance. CONCLUSION: trends in respiratory rate, measured by observation at the bedside and given a ViEWS weighting is the best predictor of clinical outcome; minor changes predicted clinical outcome several days in advance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcute Medicine JournalSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207