MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559847043 · doi:10.12968/bjon.2016.25.22.1250

History taking and physical assessment in holistic palliative care

2016· article· en· W2559847043 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marie Donnelly, Daphne Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative carePhysical examinationMedicineNursingAuscultationClosing (real estate)Health careNursing assessmentMedical historyMEDLINEPsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In carrying out a holistic palliative care assessment the palliative care clinical nurse specialist needs to develop the knowledge and skill of history taking and health assessment to make safe and competent decisions with patients regarding the future management of their care. This article examines this process in making a differential diagnosis with particular reference to the respiratory physical examination of a patient with a history of lung cancer using the Calgary-Cambridge Model. The model gives structure to the preparation, history taking, and physical examination (inspection, palpation, percussion and auscultation) before explaining, planning and closing the consultation, while considering the palliative patient's and family's individual wishes and goals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of NursingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207