Primary care of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: 2018 Canadian consensus guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To update the 2011 Canadian guidelines for primary care of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). METHODS: Family physicians and other health professionals experienced in the care of people with IDD reviewed and synthesized recent empirical, ecosystem, expert, and experiential knowledge. A system was developed to grade the strength of recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Adults with IDD are a heterogeneous group of patients and have health conditions and factors affecting their health that can vary in kind, manifestation, severity, or complexity from those of others in the community. They require approaches to care and interventions that are adapted to their needs. These guidelines provide advice regarding standards of care. References to clinical tools and other practical resources are incorporated. The approaches to care that are outlined here can be applied to other groups of patients that have impairments in cognitive, communicative, or other adaptive functioning. CONCLUSION: As primary care providers, family physicians play a vital role in promoting the health and well-being of adults with IDD. These guidelines can aid their decision making with patients and caregivers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".