Development and Usability Testing of a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Physician-Parent Decision Support Tool (PPADS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis presents the development and evaluation of a computerized physician-parent decision support tool for a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), known as Physician and Parent Decision Support (PPADS). The NICU is a specialized hospital unit that treats very-ill neonates. Many difficult care decisions are made daily for this vulnerable population. The PPADS tool aims to augment current NICU decision-making by helping parents and physicians make more informed decisions, improving physician-parent communication, increasing parent decision-making satisfaction, decreasing conflict, and increasing decision efficiency. The development of the PPADS tool followed a five-step methodology: assessing the clinical environment, establishing the design criteria, developing the system design, implementing the system, and performing usability testing. Usability testing of the PPADS tool was performed on neonatologists and on parents of neonates who have graduated (survived) from a tertiary level NICU. The usability testing demonstrated the usefulness and ease of use of the tool.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".