MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of a Congestive Heart Failure Protocol in a Rehabilitation Setting

2010· article· en· W2063534975 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rose G. Anderson, Susan J. Joy, Amy Carkido, Sarah Anthony, David J Smyntek, Dana E. Stewart, Stella Perrine, Terry A. Puet, Edward T. Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueRehabilitation Nursing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersReseau canadien de recherche respiratoireAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsRehabilitationMedicineHeart failureProtocol (science)Acute carePsychological interventionMultidisciplinary teamSkilled Nursing FacilityIntensive care medicineMultidisciplinary approachPhysical therapyMedical emergencyEmergency medicineNursingHealth careInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of patients in a rehabilitation setting were being transferred to acute-care facilities with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF). A transfer penalty was charged to the rehabilitation facility based on each patient's length of stay. A multidisciplinary team was assembled with physician support to address the problem. The team's goal was to develop a CHF protocol with guidelines that would allow for more frequent nursing assessments and reporting to physicians. The protocol interventions were initiated consistently and monitored on each shift. These interventions allowed for more timely assessment and treatment of patients with signs and symptoms of CHF. As a result, the number of patients being transferred to acute-care hospitals has decreased, allowing patients to complete their rehabilitation process without interruption. The decreased number of patients being transferred to the acute-care setting has resulted in fewer transfer penalties for the rehabilitation facility.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.315 · 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.

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 venueRehabilitation NursingSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207