MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272988824 · doi:10.5737/1181912x1826468

Evaluation of a nurse-led telephone follow-up clinic for patients with indolent and chronic hematological malignancies: A pilot study

2008· article· en· W2272988824 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Aldyn Overend, Michael Delorme, Vanessa Krause, Ardashes Avanessian, David L. Saltman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandBC Cancer AgencyInterior Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOncology nursingPatient satisfactionInternal medicineFamily medicinePhysical therapyNursingNurse education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A physician/nurse collaborative team sought to determine whether a nurse-led telephone clinic (Teleclinic) could effectively and safely be used to follow patients with indolent and chronic hematological malignancies. Patients seen at their routine follow-up visit were assessed for eligibility for the Teleclinic, then referred to the pilot Teleclinic by their oncologist. Patients were interviewed by telephone by an oncology nurse experienced in hematologic malignancies. Fifty-three patients consented to participate in the pilot study. Following their Teleclinic interview, patients were asked to complete a "Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire" (SSQ). Overall patient satisfaction with the Teleclinic was high. It was determined that patients with low-grade and chronic hematological malignancies could be followed effectively and safely by an oncology nurse-led telephone clinic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.286 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207