MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P4608Benefits of active involvement of community pharmacists in know your pulse awareness campaign

2017· article· en· W2795060758 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sotiris Antoniou, John Papastergiou, Fabio De Rango, David J. Griffiths, N Hamedi, Helen Williams, Maria Dolores Murillo, Salvador Tous, Filipa Alves da Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulse (music)Medical educationFamily medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia globally, responsible for one third of strokes, and often resulting in death or incapacity. This condition, frequently asymptomatic, is estimated to be up to 50% undiagnosed. Reducing this risk with appropriate detection and management strategies offers substantial economic and patient benefits. The International Pharmacist for Anticoagulation Care Taskforce- [iPACT] created a partnership with the Atrial Fibrillation Association (AFA) to test a model whereby pharmacists are actively involved in opportunistic screening for AF initially in all ages as a proof of concept. Purpose: To assess the feasibility of pharmacists implementing pulse checks in community pharmacy to enable identification of new cases of AF and subsequent initiation of anticoagulation. Methods: This initiative was tested in 5 iPACT member countries during global AF aware week (21–27th November 2016): Canada, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and UK. Materials (posters and leaflets) and training on pathophysiology of AF and demonstration of pulse taking was presented to all centres prior to taking part in the campaign. Any person walking into a community pharmacy over 18 years of age was offered a free pulse check. For any irregularity detected, individualised counselling was offered with a referral made to local family physician and recommendation that if AF was confirmed, anticoagulation should be offered in accordance with international guidelines. Written patient consent was obtained with ethics approval sought in countries requiring it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.399
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.086 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207