CONDUTAS PARA A PREVENÇÃO DE QUEDAS DE PACIENTES COM ACIDENTE VASCULAR ENCEFÁLICO PREVENTION STRATEGIES FOR FALLING IN PATIENTS WITH STROKE CONDUCTAS PARA LA PREVENCIÓN DE CAÍDAS DE PACIENTES CON ACCIDENTE VASCULAR ENCEFÁLICO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMO: A reducao e a prevencao do risco de quedas estao associadas a promocao da saude por meio da criacao de ambientes favoraveis, como sugerido pela Carta de Ottawa. O objetivo do estudo foi analisar a prevencao de quedas em pacientes que sofreram acidente vascular encefalico, mediante utilizacao de indicadores da Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC). Estudo transversal, descritivo, realizado em unidades de reabilitacao, na cidade de Fortaleza-CE, no periodo de 2007 a 2008. Participaram 121 pacientes, 52,9% do sexo masculino, media de idade de 61,6 anos, 66,1% aposentados ou pensionistas. Foram identificados seis comportamentos de prevencao de quedas segundo a NOC. Os comportamentos uso de fixacao de tapetes e uso de tapetes de borracha nao foram identificados entre os avaliados, e a presenca de cuidador foi identificada em 85,1% da amostra. Tais fatos merecem destaque, pois a ausencia de medidas preventivas pode aumentar o risco de quedas. Palavras-chave: Acidente cerebral vascular; acidentes por quedas; promocao da saude; enfermagem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".