MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767360461 · doi:10.5380/ce.v22i4.49867

AVALIAÇÃO DE SINTOMAS DO PACIENTE COM CÂNCER DE BEXIGA EM CUIDADOS PALIATIVOS: ESTUDO DE CASO

2017· article· pt· W2767360461 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCogitare Enfermagem · 2017
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative and Oncologic Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careGynecologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar os sintomas do paciente com câncer de bexiga em cuidados paliativos. Estudo de caso, realizado no período de março a junho de 2015, em um serviço hospitalar no sul do Brasil, com um participante do sexo masculino, com câncer de bexiga e a cuidadora principal (filha) de 47 anos. Realizada coleta de dados de prontuário físico, eletrônico e 12 avaliações de enfermagem, com a Escala de Avaliação de Sintomas Edmonton. Os sintomas predominantes foram: cansaço, sonolência, diminuição do apetite, depressão, ansiedade e bem-estar diminuído. O estudo sugere que os sintomas, quando não controlados, estão diretamente relacionados à menor qualidade de morte; observou-se a importância da utilização de uma escala específica para avaliação de sintomas de pacientes em cuidados paliativos, para melhorar a assistência prestada.

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.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.299 · 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