MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007231913 · doi:10.1136/ebn.11.3.95

A potential barrier to discussing deactivation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators was patients’ lack of knowledgeCommentary

2008· letter· en· W2007231913 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Carroll

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShock (circulatory)Implantable cardioverter-defibrillatorReceiptGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

N E Goldstein Dr N E Goldstein, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; nathan.goldstein@mssm.edu What are potential barriers to discussing deactivation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with advanced illness? Qualitative focus groups. Outpatient electrophysiology clinic at an academic medical centre in New York City, New York, USA. 15 patients 30–90 years of age (median age 69 y, 67% men) who had ICDs and were cognitively intact (scores ⩾8 on a mental status questionnaire). Patients were assigned to 1 of 3 focus groups based on ICD implantation and receipt of shock: ICD <1 year and no shock (n = 5), ICD ⩾1 year and no shock (n = 2), and ICD ⩾1 year and shock (n = 8); no participants had an ICD <1 y and shock. All participants were compensated for their time. …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207