ISQUA17-1828PATIENT ADVISORS AT THE BED SIDE FOR HAND REPLANTATION PATIENTS: WHAT ADDED VALUE FOR QUALITY OF CARE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since May 2014, the centre for expertise in surgical reattachment of severed upper limbs at the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal has been inviting former patients to support new patients at the Centre in their care process. In this innovative model of patient partnership, co-designed by former patients, former patients return to the rehabilitation center on a voluntary basis to meet with current patients during post-surgery hospitalization and/or key moments of the rehabilitation process, in order to discuss the various obstacles and challenges encountered. Considered full-fledged team members, those ‘patient advisors’ are invited to meet new patients on a voluntary basis four times over the one-year rehabilitation process to: 1) share their experience; 2) ensure that patients are involved in developing their treatment plans; and 3) improve treatment adherence. To assess the contribution of patient advisors and identify factors that can help or inhibit their intervention, we analyzed all documentation produced since 2014; conducted interviews with professionals (n = 7), patients advisors (n = 7), and patients (n = 15); and held a group discussion with patient advisors.
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 | 0.030 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.004 |
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".