MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2369036959

Study the position in bed for the patients who have used heparin sodium after percutaneous coronary intervention therapy

2006· article· en· W2369036959 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wei We

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œJournal of practical nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionMedicineSignificant differenceHeparin sodiumAnxietyHeparinHematomaBed restAnesthesiaSurgeryPhysical therapyInternal medicineMyocardial infarction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To explore the best position in bed for the patients who have under the operation of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and then used heparin sodium within 24 hours. Methods The 159 patients were divided into two groups randomly:the experimental group and the control group. After the PCI, the subjects in these two groups will rest in bed by two ways. Using McGill′s present Pain Index to evaluate hematoma, using the PPI to evaluate the pain of back, using the STAI to evaluate the condition of anxiety, write the number of patient who have anuresises. Results There are no significant difference between two groups in wound blooding, while the difference of back pain, anxiety and the anuresises are significant between two groups. Conclusion The position of half-lie is safe and comfortable for the patients who have under the operation of PCI.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œJournal of practical nursingSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207