Gastrointestinal Nurse Navigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer is the second most frequent cancer diagnosis in the United States, and the care for patients with GI cancer is multifaceted, with each clinical encounter impacting patients' overall experience. Patients and families often navigate this complicated journey on their own with limited resources and knowledge; therefore, innovative, patient-centered, and quality-focused programs must be developed. The purpose of this article is to discuss the development of GI nurse navigators (NNs) and the important role they have in providing coordinated evidence-based cancer care and in the benchmarking of quality metrics to allow more transparency and improve GI cancer care. This article provides a foundation for developing a GI NN role within the context of a newly developed multidisciplinary GI cancer program, and identifies the importance of tracking specific quality metrics. This innovative model is useful for healthcare organizations and nursing practice because it identifies the importance of a nurse in the navigator role, as well as highlights the numerous functions the NN can provide to the GI multidisciplinary team and patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".