MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796576510

Managing complexity in care of patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Natural fit for the family physician as an expert generalist.

2018· review· en· W2796576510 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Grier, Dara Abells, Ian Casson, Meg Gemmill, Jessica Ladouceur, Amanda Lepp, Ullanda Niel, Samantha Sacks, Kyle Sue

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalMcMaster UniversityMemorial University of NewfoundlandQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationPromotion (chess)Health careIntellectual disabilityCognitionPsychologyDiseaseMedicineFamily medicineNursingPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To delineate the factors inherent in caring for patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) that lead to complexity and to provide perspectives and techniques mapped to the phases of the clinical encounter. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The authors of the physical health section of the 2018 Canadian consensus guidelines on the primary care of adults with IDD consisted of family physicians, all of whom practise comprehensive family medicine with additional clinical experience in care of adults with IDD. These authors reviewed evidence on which their recommendations are based and these recommendations have undergone a rigorous peer review to ensure that they deserve special attention because they highlight what is different from what a family physician would consider to constitute "normal care" for the general population. MAIN MESSAGE: Additional factors across the phases of clinical encounters with patients with IDD include the need for the following: an initial assessment that identifies genetic or neurologic conditions to guide anticipatory care and isolates unique barriers to health promotion and chronic disease management; adaptations to history taking, particularly for patients who are unable to describe symptoms owing to cognitive and communication deficits; overcoming challenges to performing physical examinations and certain investigations; addressing uncertainty in the formulation of hypotheses to establish an appropriate diagnosis; and involvement of resources of the developmental services sector to provide a management plan as well as an adapted empathetic approach in order to integrate the patient's illness experience. CONCLUSION: Although each patient with IDD is unique, and care of patients with IDD requires knowledge of certain conditions, these considerations are readily identifiable, and family physicians as expert generalists are well equipped to provide excellent care to patients with IDD.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207