MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring the evidence base of the use of non-invasive ventilation

2006· review· en· W2085909964 on OpenAlexaff
Helen G. Jarvis

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPulmonary diseaseIntensive care medicineVentilation (architecture)Noninvasive ventilationEvidence-based nursingNursingMechanical ventilationAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has a prevalence rate of between 4-10% in the UK (Halbert et al, 2003) and as such accounts for a large number of hospital admissions each year. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is now increasingly used to treat exacerbations of this condition and therefore nurses caring for these patients need an understanding of the rationale behind its instigation. This article reviews the literature pertaining to the use of NIV in the patient with COPD and provides a critique of the research available. The implications for practice have been highlighted through a discussion regarding the nursing management of the patient on NIV.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.470
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.080 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of NursingSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207