MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144646876 · doi:10.1017/s0959259801011170

Outcome measures in the rehabilitation of older adults

2001· article· en· W2144646876 on OpenAlexaff
Chris MacKnight, Colin Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Clinical Gerontology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIngenuityMeasure (data warehouse)Health carePrincipal (computer security)RehabilitationHealth care deliveryPsychologyNursingMedicineApplied psychologyComputer sciencePhysical therapyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why measure? Before we consider what to measure and how to measure outcomes in the rehabilitation of frail older adults, an antecedent question is, why measure these things? Without an answer satisfactory for both measurers and measured, much effort and ingenuity will be expended with resultant perspiration and exasperation and little else. Traditionally, medical care, i.e. that identified by physicians, has assumed that its principal objective was patient care, i.e. that appreciated by patients. Outcomes of care from the viewpoint of the patient, of his or her informal supporters, of the involved health care professionals, and of the health care delivery system have to be clarified and made operationally explicit. This recognition requires definition and measurement. Thus a powerful reason for measuring outcomes for recipients and providers of health care, as well as the health care delivery system, is to know what is happening (the descriptive question) and with what effect (the analytical question).

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)0.082
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0820.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.708
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.127 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Clinical GerontologySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207