MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767928591 · doi:10.12968/bjca.2017.12.11.532

An alternative to RCTs in the case of sample heterogeneity

2017· article· en· W2767928591 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Fredericks, Jennifer Lapum, Julia Policelli

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cardiac Nursing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialLife expectancyPopulationQuality of life (healthcare)Intervention (counseling)Gold standard (test)Promotion (chess)Sample (material)Health promotionHeart diseaseGerontologyPhysical therapyEnvironmental healthNursingPublic healthSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the population living with congenital heart disease ages, health promotion interventions have become more important. The uptake and maintenance of health-promoting behaviours and social support for the congenital heart disease population not only have the potential to extend a person's life expectancy, but also enhance quality of life and overall health and wellbeing. Using a gold-standard approach, such as a randomised controlled trial (RCT), to evaluate the effectiveness of such an intervention does not address heterogeneity among individuals, while the results obtained from RCTs tend to not be generalised to the larger population of interest. The Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework provides an alternative evaluative approach to examining the effectiveness of online gaming interventions, and has the capacity to address the unique needs of the congenital heart disease population.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Cardiac NursingSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207