MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043409515 · doi:10.1136/ebm.13.4.98-a

Knowledge-to-action cycle

2008· article· en· W2043409515 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumKnowledge translationAction (physics)Psychological interventionMedicineIntensive care medicineHip fractureCognitionNursingPsychologyPsychiatryKnowledge managementOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare systems worldwide are faced with improving quality of care and decreasing adverse events.1 Providing evidence from clinical research is necessary but not sufficient for the provision of optimal care.2 This finding has created interest in knowledge translation (KT), the scientific study of the methods for closing the knowledge-to-practice gap and the analysis of barriers and facilitators inherent in this process.2 There are many proposed theories and frameworks for achieving KT, which can be confusing.3 One conceptual framework developed by Graham et al builds on the commonalities found in an assessment of planned-action theories.4 This knowledge-to-action cycle (figure) comprises knowledge creation and action components. We describe the application of this knowledge-to-action framework to a common clinical challenge: preventing delirium in older adults hospitalised for hip fracture. Knowledge-to-action cycle Delirium occurs in 25–65% of hospitalised patients treated for acute hip fracture.5-7 These patients are at increased risk of death, longer hospital stay, hospital-acquired complications, persistent cognitive deficits, and discharge to long-term care.8-11 Several factors increase the risk of delirium, including older age, use of physical restraints, malnutrition, use of urinary catheters, and the addition of more than 3 new medications.12 Strategies to prevent delirium have been shown to be effective but are underused in practice. Since multiple factors usually contribute to the development of delirium, multicomponent interventions appear effective in its prevention.13 14 A Cochrane review of strategies to prevent delirium15 identified 1 study of a multicomponent intervention targeted towards older adults admitted with hip fractures.16 However, multicomponent interventions are challenging to implement and sustain in real world clinical settings. One strategy to …

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.247 · 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