MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH: A VALUABLE TOOL FOR NEPHROLOGY NURSES

2007· review· en· W1964486095 on OpenAlexaff
Itoko Tobita, Cheryl A. Hyde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Renal Care · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrologyQuality of life (healthcare)Quality (philosophy)NursingPopulationIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Findings from quality of life research provide nurses with valuable information for planning care. However, the instrument for measuring quality of life has to be carefully selected to ensure that it assesses accurately the impact on the patients' lives. The research tools reviewed in this article (QLI-H, and KDQOLTM) are well-established instruments that have contributed significantly to understanding issues surrounding quality of life in the end-stage renal disease population. This understanding will lead to improved patient care in the field of nephrology nursing practice.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Renal CareSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207