MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943869827 · doi:10.15353/cjo.80.280

Rôle des optométristes de soins primaires dans l’évaluation et la prise en charge des patients ayant subi un traumatisme cérébral au Canada

2018· article· fr· W2943869827 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Zoé Lacroix, Susan J. Leat, Lisa Christian

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGynecologyMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les traumatismes cérébraux (TCC) résultent d’un choc violent à la tête qui perturbe le fonctionnement normal du cerveau.1 On catégorise le TCC en trois degrés de gravité qui vont de léger à grave, selon l’état mental du patient, son niveau de conscience et l’amnésie provoquée par la lésion. Selon une estimation prudente, l’incidence annuelle du TCC en Amérique du Nord et en Europe est d’environ 600/100 000.2,3 Cela représente au moins 200 000 cas de TCC au Canada chaque année. Sel-on les Centers for Disease Control and Prevention et l’Institut canadien d’information sur la santé, les principales causes de TCC entraînant une hospitalisation sont les chutes (35 - 45 %), suivies des accidents de la route (17 - 36 %), des événements liés aux collisions (se heurter sur ou être heurté par) (10 -17 %) et des agressions (9 -10 %).4,5 Les blessures à la tête sont plus courantes chez les enfants et les jeunes (0-19 ans), suivis par les personnes âgées (60 ans et plus). Ils sont aussi plus fréquents chez les hommes que chez les femmes, et ce, dans chaque groupe d’âge. Cependant, il convient de noter que la démographie des patients qui se présentent dans un cabinet d’optométriste peut différer de celle qui est basée sur les admissions à l’hôpital [...]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207