MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729671309 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.2547

REAL-TIME LOCATION SYSTEMS FACILITATE INDEPENDENCE IN LONG-TERM AND SPECIALIZED CARE SETTINGS

2017· article· en· W2729671309 on OpenAlexaff
Dennis H. Sullivan, William D. Kearns, Alex Mihailidis

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Real-time locating systemIndependence (probability theory)PopulationComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychologyApplied psychologyReal-time computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this symposium, speakers will discuss clinical and research initiatives utilizing real-time location systems (RTLS) to promote functional independence of vulnerable adults in home and clinical environments. The intended use of RTLS to inform clinical decision-making will be described. Session one will focus on RTLS to monitor older residents’ movements in an assisted living environment; data reduction and analysis techniques that map resident ambulation patterns around the facility and reveal intra-individual pattern changes in order to predict falls in this vulnerable population will be presented. Session two presents a unique integration of RTLS with bed monitors to support a nurse-driven clinical initiative promoting early and progressive ambulation in hospitalized Veterans. The validity, sensitivity and specificity of system-generated reports of patient time in motion, out of bed but sedentary, and at bed rest and the challenges of differentiating various modes of Veteran movement will be discussed. In the final session, ongoing work on model “Smart Home” integrated systems to support Veterans with traumatic brain injury in various environments will be presented. The session will describe a system that prompts a patient to perform specific functional tasks, the data integration strategies used to detect the behavior sequences in the task, and planned enhancements to the system that will reengage a Veteran to resume interrupted behavior sequences at the point in the sequence where the requisite behaviors have been omitted.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207