Supportive Decision Making at the Point of Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variations in nursing care have been observed, affecting patient outcomes and quality of care. Case-based reasoners that benchmark for patient indicators can reduce variation through decision support. This study evaluated and validated a case-based reasoning application to establish benchmarks for nursing-sensitive patient outcomes of pain, fatigue, and toilet use, using patient characteristic variables for generating similar cases. Three graduate nursing students participated. Each ranked 25 patient cases using demographics of age, sex, diagnosis, and comorbidities against 10 patients from a database. Participant judgments of case similarity were compared with the case-based reasoning system. Feature weights for each indicator were adjusted to make the case-based reasoning system's similarity ranking correspond more closely to participant judgment. Small differences were noted between initial weights and weights generated from participants. For example, initial weight for comorbidities was 0.35, whereas weights generated by participants for pain, fatigue, and toilet use were 0.49, 0.42, and 0.48, respectively. For the same outcomes, the initial weight for sex was 0.15, but weights generated by the participants were 0.025, 0.002, and 0.000, respectively. Refinement of the case-based reasoning tool established valid benchmarks for patient outcomes in relation to participants and assisted in point-of-care decision making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".