MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169901874 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201406-1117pp

The Role of Stepdown Beds in Hospital Care

2014· review· en· W2169901874 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

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stepdown beds provide an intermediate level of care for patients with requirements somewhere between that of the general ward and the intensive care unit. Models of care include incorporation of stepdown beds into intensive care units, stand-alone units, or incorporation of beds into standard wards. Stepdown beds may be used to provide a higher level of care for patients deteriorating on a ward ("step-up"), a lower level of care for patients transitioning out of intensive care ("stepdown") or a lateral transfer of care from a recovery room for postoperative patients. These units are one possible strategy to improve critical care cost-effectiveness and patient flow without compromising quality, but these potential benefits remain primarily theoretical as few patient-level studies provide concrete evidence. This narrative review provides a general overview of the theory of stepdown beds in the care of hospitalized patients and a summary of what is known about their impact on patient flow and outcomes and highlights areas for future research.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.307 · 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