MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602874295 · doi:10.1097/won.0000000000000319

Implementation of an Evidence-Based and Content Validated Standardized Ostomy Algorithm Tool in Home Care

2017· article· en· W2602874295 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly Bare, J.P. Drain, Monica Timko-Progar, Bobbie Stallings, Kimberly G. Smith, Naomi Ward, Sandra Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStoma care and complications
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormularyMedicineIdentification (biology)MEDLINENursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many nurses have limited experience with ostomy management. We sought to provide a standardized approach to ostomy education and management to support nurses in early identification of stomal and peristomal complications, pouching problems, and provide standardized solutions for managing ostomy care in general while improving utilization of formulary products. This article describes development and testing of an ostomy algorithm tool.

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)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence NursingSame topicStoma care and complicationsFrench-language works237,207