Mobilization patterns of children on a hematology/oncology inpatient ward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children being treated for cancer are admitted to the hospital for treatment of their disease or complications of therapy. Periods of bed rest during hospitalization can cause impairments detrimental to children with cancer who endure many side effects of therapy. Little is known about how these children mobilize while admitted to the hospital. The purpose of this study was to examine how children admitted to a hematology/oncology ward are mobilizing and analyze factors associated with delayed or infrequent mobility. PROCEDURE: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 228 charts with data recorded on documented mobilization and referrals to physiotherapy. Primary outcome was related to mobility including timing, frequency, type, and nature of mobilization. RESULTS: Almost half of children (43%) mobilized between 3 and 5 days per week, with median time to first mobilization being 2 days (interquartile range 1-3). Caregivers assisted with mobilization 91% of the time. Children isolated to their room and those reporting fever had a statistically significant decrease in the percent of admission days involving mobilization (mean difference 15 and 8%, respectively) than those not isolated and without fever. Children who were isolated also mobilized 1 day later (P = 0.016) than children who were not isolated. Percentage of time in isolation was positively correlated with timing (P = 0.04) and negatively correlated with frequency of mobilization (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most children admitted to the hospital for treatment of oncologic or hematologic conditions were noted to mobilize early, but frequency of mobilization could be improved. Periods of time in isolation appear to negatively affect mobilization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".