MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W152086986

Physiologic and psychosocial approaches to global management of the hemodialysis patient in the Southern Alberta Renal Program.

2012· article· en· W152086986 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tina Cormier, Ofelia Magat, Suzy Hager, Fanny Ng, Mi‐Ran Lee

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialMedicineIntensive care medicineHemodialysisQuality of life (healthcare)DialysisNursingDisease managementDiseaseSurgeryPsychiatryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As frontline nurses, we know firsthand the many challenges of renal disease faced by our patients and the impact on their lives and their families. How can we help them cope with their illness? How can we improve their quality of life? How can we prevent the complications inherent to the disease? How do we know we are doing a good job? Where do we start? The purpose of this presentation is to showcase the global management of the hemodialysis (HD) patient. It provides a collaborative and systematic approach to assessing, implementing, evaluating and coordinating the physiologic and the psychosocial aspects of their care. It is a model of case management followed by the Southern Alberta Renal Program (SARP) in meeting the many and complex needs of our hemodialysis patients. The quality indicators, to name a few, that relate to the physiologic aspects of their care are dialysis adequacy and fluid removal, improved blood pressure (BP) control, maintenance and improved vascular access function, anemia, bone and mineral disease management, nutritional, and diabetes management. The psychosocial aspects of care encompass goals of care, residential support, transportation, and mobility programs in the community. There may be positive implications resulting from our practice that we believe would be invaluable in terms of improved patient care, increased adherence to therapeutic regimens, improved mortality and morbidity and overall enhanced quality of life. Moreover, better communication would possibly be fostered and wise and prompt use of resources may be a result. To date, we have not done studies to prove or disprove these outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→