MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995791525 · doi:10.30651/jkm.v4i2.3127

Pola Pencegahan Primer Stroke Oleh Pasien Hipertensi Di Rumah Sakit Muhammadiyah Palembang: Studi Deskriptif

2019· article· en· W2995791525 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Afriza Rianti, Sukron Sukron, Yulius Tiranda

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Keperawatan Muhammadiyah · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPublic Health and Nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Alcohol consumptionEnvironmental healthFish <Actinopterygii>Alcohol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hypertension can lead stroke complications if not handled optimally. Disruption of blood flow causes the diameter of blood vessels of shrink, resulting in a lack of oxygen and glucose supply to the brain. Prevention is one of the best strategies to reduce the incidence of stroke. One of them is by implementing primary preventions such as regulating healthy food consumption, getting enouh rest, checking health regurarly, arranging nutrition diets, maintaining ideal body weight, doing physical activities regurarly, stop smoking, and avoiding drinking alcohol. Objective: To describe the primary preventions of stroke by hypertensive patients in Muhammadiyah Hospital of Palembang in 2019. Method: This was quantutative descriptive study using survey design. Result: Most of the respondents limited their consumption of foods containing excess salt (64.4%) and consumed protein foods regurarly such as fish (93.2%); all respondents consumed vegetables and fruits (100%), checked their health every month and did not consume alcohol. Conslusion: Primary prevention of stroke by hypertensive patients was considered as good category since they had a fairly healthy and good life behavior.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Keperawatan MuhammadiyahSame topicPublic Health and NutritionFrench-language works237,207