MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058504323 · doi:10.1136/ebn.11.4.119

Automatic stop orders reduced duration of indwelling urinary catheterisation in hospitalCommentary

2008· letter· en· W2058504323 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Skelly

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlindingUrinary systemCatheterIndwelling catheterUrinary catheterizationSurgeryRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

M Loeb Dr M Loeb, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; loebm@mcmaster.ca Does a strategy of automatic stop orders reduce duration of indwelling urinary catheterisation in patients in hospital? ### Design: randomised controlled trial. ### Allocation: concealed. ### Blinding: blinded (patients). ### Follow-up period: until catheter removal or discharge from unit. ### Setting: 7 general medical units in 3 hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. ### Patients: 692 patients in hospital (mean age 79 y, 62% women) with an indwelling urinary catheter inserted for ⩽48 hours. Patients with symptomatic urinary tract infection or an indwelling catheter inserted in the 10 days before hospital admission were excluded. ### Intervention: automatic stop orders to remove the catheter if the patient did not meet any of 6 criteria for appropriate catheterisation (urinary obstruction, …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicUrinary Tract Infections ManagementFrench-language works237,207