Kan smertekartlegging ved bruk av ESAS (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale) bidra til å lindre smerte hos eldre på sykehjem?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematisk smertekartlegging er en forutsetning for å lindre pasientens smerte. Resultater av smertekartleggingen må dokumenteres i pasientens tiltaksplan og følges opp i form av en individuell tilrettelagt behandling. Kunnskap om smerter, hvordan og hvorfor smerter bør kartlegges er viktig, men ikke tilstrekkelig for å optimalisere smertelindringen. For å få til endringer i praksis knyttet til smerter, er det behov for stabilitet i lederskap og en bevisstgjøring av personalets holdninger til eldre og smerter. Legen har en sentral rolle i å etterspørre resultater av kartlegging og bidra i en tverrfaglig vurdering for å lindre pasientens smerte. ESAS er et velegnet instrument for å kartellegge smerter hos eldre i sykehjem forutsatt at en benytter et kroppskart i tillegg.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.020 |
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".