MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2425145187 · doi:10.3138/ptc.2015-40

Cardiorespiratory Physiotherapy around the Clock: Experience at a University Hospital

2016· article· en· W2425145187 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marianne Devroey, Catherine Buyse, Michelle Norrenberg, Anne-Marie Ros, Jean‐Louis Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Canada · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessReferralIntensive care unitPhysical therapyPulmonologyCardiorespiratory arrestEmergency medicineChest physiotherapyInternal medicineNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To document and describe the use of a hospital-wide, 24-hour cardiorespiratory physiotherapy service run by an intensive care unit (ICU) team of physiotherapists. Methods: We prospectively collected data on all non-ICU hospital patients who used the 24-hours-per-day cardiorespiratory physiotherapy service over a 1-year period between July 2013 and June 2014. The ICU physiotherapists documented the reason, origin of referral, time of call, and type and frequency of treatment of each patient. Results: Over the 1-year period, the ICU physiotherapists administered 2,192 out-of-hours cardiorespiratory physiotherapy treatments (n=685 patients) outside the ICU. Most referrals originated from the emergency department (25%), the cardiopulmonary transplant unit (20%), and the pulmonology department (16%). Referrals were from a physiotherapist in 49% of cases, from a nurse in 32%, and from a physician in 19%. Of these, 89% were made between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., and sputum retention was the most frequent reason (86%). Conclusion: Although proving its cost effectiveness is difficult, organizing a 24-hours-per-day, 7-days-per-week cardiorespiratory physiotherapy service in a large hospital is feasible.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy CanadaSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207