MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experiences of Nephrology Nurses in Assessing and Managing Pain in Patients Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis

2020· article· en· W3011602519 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Nursing Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrologyHemodialysisThematic analysisContext (archaeology)Kidney diseaseIntensive care medicineChronic renal failureNursingQualitative researchInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major health problem. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe nephrology nurses' experiences in assessing and managing pain in patients who were receiving maintenance hemodialysis at outpatient units within a tertiary care institution. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven nurses, and a thematic analysis was used to analyze data. Themes emerged related to the complexity of pain assessment and management in these patients, who were often elderly. Nurses had to ascertain whether the pain was related to hemodialysis treatment, renal failure, or comorbidities. Nurses described managing pain within the context of the hemodialysis unit, and this required working as a team. Nurses also described the need for a palliative approach in patient care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · 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