MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341936015 · doi:10.5737/236880762612939

Gestion de la surcharge en fer auprès des patients en hématologie et en oncologie : répercussions sur la pratique

2016· article· fr· W2341936015 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Cindy Murray, Tammy De Gelder, Nancy Pringle, Mary Doherty

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkJuravinski HospitalJuravinski Cancer CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les transfusions de globules rouges sont vitales pour de nombreux patients aux prises avec de l’anémie chronique associée à des maladies oncologiques et hématologiques. Cependant, les transfusions répétées au fil du temps peuvent causer une surcharge en fer, laquelle, si elle n’est pas traitée, peut augmenter le risque de tumeur maligne et d’atteintes aux organes terminaux. Les infirmières et les autres professionnels de la santé peuvent ne pas être au fait de l’impact majeur des transfusions de globules rouges et de la surcharge en fer sur les patients en hématologie et en oncologie. Cet article a été élaboré par un groupe canadien d’infirmières praticiennes et d’infirmières spécialisées en oncologie pour aider les professionnels de soins de santé à mieux comprendre la surcharge en fer chez les patients atteints de cancer et les risques associés, et pour offrir un guide pratique de gestion des patients traités pour cet état potentiellement grave. Mots clés : oncologie, maladie hématologique maligne; surcharge en fer; traitement par chélation du fer; pratique des soins infirmiers

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207