A retrospective pilot study on patients who deteriorated while admitted to a neurovascular ward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this pilot study was to collect information on the circumstances of care for neuroscience inpatients who were referred to a rapid response team for recognised deterioration, and to explore the appropriateness of the tools used to collect that information. A quantitative descriptive study design was employed to retrospectively review 30 patient charts from a quaternary centre in Canada. Two nurse reviewers independently collected the data and non-inferential statistics were analysed to provide a broad picture of the characteristics of patients who had deteriorated. The underlying cause of deterioration for the majority of patients was not the result of neurological sequelae, but rather due to secondary medical complications. Aspiration pneumonia was the leading medical complication, followed by sepsis. Patients with central nervous system lesions are at significant risk of aspiration pneumonia, an often-overlooked secondary complication, which requires vigilance in the neuroscience nurse in order to prevent. The tools used to collect this information will require further refining to be useful for a larger, prospective study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".