Respiratory day hospital: a novel approach to acute respiratory care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1996 we established a day hospital dedicated to acute respiratory care, as an alternative to emergency department and inpatient treatment. The unit is staffed by respirologists, family physicians and specialized nurses; patients have access to all standard inpatient treatments and services. Between 1996/97 and 1998/99 the annual number of admissions to the day hospital increased from 658 to 922. By 1998/99 more than 75% of patients were referred for acute treatment, with a mean stay of 2.3 days. The most common diagnoses were asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which accounted for 58% and 32% respectively of treatment-related admissions. Treatment most often involved intravenous corticosteroid therapy and inhaled bronchodilator therapy. Between 1996/97 and 1998/9 the proportion of patients requiring transfer to overnight care decreased from 22% to 14%; complications and unscheduled return visits were rare. We believe that a respiratory day hospital provides a useful alternative to emergency department and inpatient care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".