MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1844170439 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v5n12p42

The effect of nurses training on ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) prevention bundle on VAP incidence rate at a critical care unit

2015· article· en· W1844170439 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rashad Ismail, Eman Zahran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentilator-associated pneumoniaMedicinePneumoniaIncidence (geometry)Intensive care unitIntensive care medicineIntubationAirwaySpontaneous breathing trialMechanical ventilationBundleEmergency medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of critically ill patients need mechanical ventilator (MV) which assists or replaces spontaneous breathing. Mechanically ventilated patients are more likely to develop pulmonary infection and ventilated associated pneumonia (VAP). Intubation bypasses the normal airway protective mechanisms and acts as a direct route for bacterial invasion to the airway. VAP has been associated with increased morbidity, longer hospital stay, increased health care costs, and higher mortality rates. Critical care nurse has an important and crucial role in preventing VAP. Evidence indicates that training of critical care nurses about the implementation of VAP Prevention Bundle had a great effect on decreasing the incidence of VAP. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the effect of nurses training on VAP Prevention Bundle on VAP incidence Rate at a Critical Care Unit.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207