MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114515204 · doi:10.1177/0193945904265690

Enhancing Postoperative Recovery of Cardiac Surgery Patients

2004· article· en· W2114515204 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Nursing Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's UniversityMinistry of Health and Long Term Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialDistressPsychological interventionPhysical therapyCardiac surgeryIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialEmergency medicineNursingSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this trial was to determine the effectiveness of advanced practice nursing support on cardiac surgery patients' during the first 5 weeks following hospital discharge. Patients ( N = 200) were randomly allocated to two groups: (a) an intervention group who received telephone calls from an advanced practice nurse (APN) familiar with their clinical condition and care needs, twice during the first week following discharge then weekly thereafter for 4 weeks, and (b) a usual care group. Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQL), symptom distress, satisfaction with recovery care, and unexpected health care contacts were obtained at 5 weeks following discharge. There were no significant group differences in HRQL, unexpected contacts with the health care system, or symptom distress. The provision of APN support via telephone followup after cardiac surgery is feasible. However, further randomized trials of single and multicomponent APN interventions are needed to prove effectiveness.

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.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.361 · 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