MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1578569537 · doi:10.5205/4896

Educational steps adopted in post-operative period of prostatectomy: an integrative review

2014· article· en· W1578569537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bianca Ferreira Mousinho Rêgo, Camila Araújo Florêncio de Lima, Maria Isabel da Conceição Dias Fernandes, Elisandra de Araújo Saldanha, Ana Luísa Brandão de Carvalho Lira, Allyne Fortes Vítor

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative and Oncologic Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyNursingMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: identifying the educational steps used in patients in the postoperative prostatectomy and establishing a relationship between these measures and the Letters of Health Promotion. Method: an integrative review, with a view to answering the question << What educational measures were adopted in the postoperative period of prostatectomy? It searched at the bases SciVerse Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medical Publications, Latin American and Caribbean Literature of Health Sciences and The Cochrane Library, between October and November 2012. For the analysis it was used a validated instrument for filing, it was built table and a figure. Results: main educational measures: delivery of educational material, psychosocial and physiological care, support groups, and particular orientation and training. The Ottawa Charter and the Declaration of Santafe were related to all measures. Conclusion: employing the principles of promoting health coadunated with educational measures is important for self-care.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicPalliative and Oncologic CareFrench-language works237,207