MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1528503595 · doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-385-1_12

Qualitative Research in Clinical Epidemiology

2008· review· en· W1528503595 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah M. Gregory, Christine Way

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsSt. John’s Health Sciences CentreMemorial University of NewfoundlandHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryQualitative researchHemodialysisPerceptionEpidemiologyScale (ratio)Clinical PracticeClinical epidemiologyQualitative propertyDiseasePsychologyMedicineFamily medicineInternal medicinePsychiatrySociologyMathematicsSocial scienceGeographyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter has been written to specifically address the usefulness of qualitative research for the practice of clinical epidemiology. The methods of grounded theory to facilitate understanding of human behavior and construction of monitoring scales for use in quantitative studies are discussed. In end-stage renal disease patients receiving long-term hemodialysis, a qualitative study used grounded theory to generate a multilayered classification system, which culminated in a substantive theory on living with end-stage renal disease and hemodialysis. The qualitative database was revisited for the purpose of scale development and led to the Patient Perception of Hemodialysis Scale (PPHS). The quantitative study confirmed that the PPHS was psychometrically valid and reliable and supported the major premises of the substantive theory.

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)0.104
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1040.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.828
GPT teacher head0.821
Teacher spread0.007 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biology→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→