MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729569525 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.2523

A STANDARD OF CARE FOR MOBILIZATION: STEPPING INTO THE FUTURE OF SENIOR-FRIENDLY CARE

2017· article· en· W2729569525 on OpenAlexaff
B.A. Liu, J.E. Denomme, B. O’Leary, Ummukulthum Almaawiy

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsOntario Stroke NetworkHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationMobilizationPsychological interventionStandard of careMedicineHealth careAccountabilityActivities of daily livingNursingPhysical therapyPolitical scienceComputer scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low mobility during hospitalization is an under recognized epidemic leading to adverse outcomes. Early mobilization interventions have been shown to decrease length of stay and improve functional status. Sunnybrook Health Science Centres has a standard of care for mobility to ensure seniors maintain optimal function during hospitalization. The standard requires early and daily assessment of mobility status by the inter-professional health care team using an algorithm to create an individualized mobilization plan that promotes a minimum of 3 mobility activities daily. Mobility has been integrated into rounds, transfer of accountability and documentation. Patients meeting the mobility standard of care have increased from 16% to 81%, patients with documented mobility level from 29% to 96% and those with “out of bed” activities have increased from 35% to 71%. There has been a 5% increase in patients discharged home without support, no increase in injurious falls and LOS has remained stable.

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)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0080.015
Research integrity0.0130.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207