MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396481559

A prospective study of early ambulation 90 minutes post-left heart catheterization using a retrospective comparison group.

2010· article· en· W2396481559 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donna Best, Rodolfo Pike, Patricia Grainger, Cathy A. Eastwood, Karen C. Carroll

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyRetrospective cohort studyPhysical therapyCardiac catheterizationSurgeryEmergency medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite a trend toward a reduction in bedrest time after left heart catheterization (LHC) in many Canadian centres, an evidence-based standard of practice has not been established. Canadian bedrest times range from two to four hours post-LHC. Two recent prospective non-randomized studies (n = 1,000) indicate safety of ambulation at 60 and 90 minutes post-LHC. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine safety of ambulating patients at 90 minutes post-LHC sheath removal compared to the current practice of ambulation at three to four hours post-sheath removal. DESIGN: The study was a prospective non-concurrent design with a retrospective control. METHOD/SAMPLE: Retrospective data from the APPROACH database and chart reviews were analyzed for a period of six months for the control group on the traditional three- to four-hour ambulation protocol (n = 402). Prospective data were gathered for six months for the experimental group (n = 193). RESULTS: There was no difference in complication rates for the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that early ambulation for selected patients at 90 minutes is safe and has the potential to increase both patient comfort and quality of care.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207