MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323996025 · doi:10.1097/pra.0000000000000137

Key Role of Social Supports in a Cardiac Transplant Treatment Team

2016· review· en· W2323996025 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

VenueJournal of Psychiatric Practice · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary teamMedicineDepression (economics)Multidisciplinary approachSocial supportAnxietyIntensive care medicinePsychiatryPsychologyNursingPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Only a limited literature focuses on solid organ transplant outcomes using an integrated care approach connecting the transplant team with psychiatry, other medical specialties, and importantly, the patient's social supports. We present the case of a man with heart failure whom we treated for symptoms of anxiety and depression both precardiac and postcardiac transplant. The patient was managed by a multidisciplinary team for his complex medical, psychiatric, family, and social issues. Most notably, the role and involvement of his primary caregiver at home changed during the crucial period between his pretransplant evaluation and clinical care during the year following his cardiac transplant. Unfortunately our patient succumbed to a poor outcome both socially and medically, dying 1 year posttransplant. Our experience with this patient led us to explore the cardiac transplant presurgical and postsurgical assessment and management process, focusing on the key role of social support in the patient care team.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.350 · 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