Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is suggested that clinical engineers take the lead in formulating evaluation processes to recommend equipment replacement. Their skill, knowledge, and experience, combined with access to equipment databases, make them a logical choice. Based on ideas from Fennigkoh's scheme, elements such as age, vendor support, accumulated maintenance cost, and function/risk were used.6 Other more subjective criteria such as cost benefits and efficacy of newer technology were not used. The element of downtime was also omitted due to the data element not being available. The resulting Periop Master Equipment List and its rationale was presented to the Perioperative Services Program Council. They deemed the criteria to be robust and provided overwhelming acceptance of the list. It was quickly put to use to estimate required capital funding, justify items already thought to need replacement, and identify high-priority ranked items for replacement. Incorporating prioritization criteria into an existing equipment database would be ideal. Some commercially available systems do have the basic elements of this. Maintaining replacement data can be labor-intensive regardless of the method used. There is usually little time to perform the tasks necessary for prioritizing equipment. However, where appropriate, a clinical engineering department might be able to conduct such an exercise as shown in the following case study.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".