Service organisation for the secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To determine the effectiveness of service organisation interventions which are intended to improve secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease and which are delivered in primary care and community settings. Ultimately the comparisons undertaken in the review will be determined by the studies identified by the review, but may include: Any organisational intervention aimed at improving adherence to secondary prevention recommendations versus normal care; Clinician‐centred organisational strategies aimed at improving clinician adherence to secondary prevention recommendations relating to medication and monitoring versus normal care (i.e. register‐based regular patient recall for risk factor monitoring and prophylaxis management); Specific clinician‐centred organisational strategies for improving clinician adherence to secondary prevention recommendations versus other strategies (i.e. register‐based regular patient recall for routine physician consultation versus regular recall to in‐practice secondary prevention clinics versus regular practice secondary prevention audit); One‐off patient‐centred behavioural interventions aimed at improving patient adherence to secondary prevention recommendations (i.e. patient education, motivation) versus normal care; Sustained (repeated contact) patient‐centred behavioural interventions aimed at improving patient adherence to secondary prevention recommendations versus normal care; Clinician‐centred organisational strategies versus patient‐centred interventions; Nurse‐delivery versus doctor‐delivery of comparable interventions; In‐practice delivery versus community setting delivery of comparable interventions; Delivery of comparable interventions to individual patients versus groups of patients.
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 | 0.036 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.129 | 0.020 |
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".