MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964003588 · doi:10.1136/ebn.7.3.81

Coaching by non-drug prescribing health professionals reduced total cholesterol concentrations in coronary heart disease

2004· letter· en· W1964003588 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Tranmer

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseMyocardial infarctionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vale MJ, Jelinek MV, Best JD, et al . Coaching patients On Achieving Cardiovascular Health (COACH): a multicenter randomized trial in patients with coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:2775–83.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), does a 6 month programme of coaching by non-drug prescribing nurses and dietitians reduce total cholesterol (TC) concentrations? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: randomised controlled trial (Coaching patients On Achieving Cardiovascular Health [COACH]). ### ![Graphic][6] Allocation: concealed. ### ![Graphic][7] Blinding: blinded (outcome assessors). ### ![Graphic][8] Follow up period: 6 months. ### ![Graphic][9] Setting: cardiology departments of 6 university teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. ### ![Graphic][10] Patients: 792 patients (mean age 59 y, 77% men) who were admitted to hospital for coronary artery bypass graft surgery; percutaneous coronary intervention; acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina and discharged on medical therapy; or coronary angiography with planned … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BIntern%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DVale%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BJ.%26rft.volume%253D163%26rft.issue%253D22%26rft.spage%253D2775%26rft.epage%253D2783%26rft.atitle%253DCoaching%2Bpatients%2BOn%2BAchieving%2BCardiovascular%2BHealth%2B%2528COACH%2529%253A%2BA%2BMulticenter%2BRandomized%2BTrial%2Bin%2BPatients%2BWith%2BCoronary%2BHeart%2BDisease%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchinte.163.22.2775%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14662633%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archinte.163.22.2775&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=14662633&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F3%2F81.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000187007700015&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207