Impact of Personalized Intervention with Family's Participation on the Security of Intravenous Infusions in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the effect of personalized intervention with family's participation on the security of intravenous infusions in patients with mild cognitive impairment(MCI). Methods 39 cases of MCI patients with intravenous infusions in our hospital from September 2013 to December 2013 were selected as the control group, while 40 cases of MCI patients from January 2014 to April 2014 were selected as the observation group. All patients received same nursing intervention; in addition, patients in the observation group had family's participation during the nursing intervention process. The scores of Montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA), incidence of safety issues during intravenous infusion and satisfaction to intravenous infusion were compared between two groups. Results The observation group was superior to the control group in the scores of MoCA, incidence of safety issues during intravenous infusion and satisfaction to intravenous infusion(P 0.05). Conclusions Personalized intervention with family's participation can effectively improve MCI patients' cognitive function, reduce the incidence of safety issues during intravenous infusion, and improve patients' satisfaction to intravenous infusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".