MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972115811 · doi:10.1016/s1474-5151(10)60022-9

35 Oral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Supporting Care from Referral to Follow-Up

2010· article· en· W1972115811 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Lauck, C. Galte, John G. Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralAortic valveCardiologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is fast becoming a treatment option for people with severe aortic stenosis. The rapid development of transcatheter approaches offers promising treatment options for non-surgical candidates, and may in the future present a safe and less invasive alternative to surgical valve replacement. As TAVI gains acceptance and popularity, it is essential that nurses and allied health professionals keep pace with identifying and addressing the needs of patients and programmes to prevent gaps in care. Outline: The presentation will describe the care map developed by the interdisciplinary team to support the trajectory of care from referral to follow-up for the more than 200 patients who have undergone TAVI procedures at our centre. The various components of the TAVI care map will be outlined. The importance of the assessment of patient-reported outcomes, including physical, mental and social function, and neurocognitive status in the elderly cardiac patient will be stressed. The findings of the evaluation of the care map in the initial 24 hours following the procedure will be presented. Recommendations for programme development, including screening process, pre-procedure teaching and early discharge planning will be discussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular NursingSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207