MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3023067400

Easing the Economic Burden of Atrial Fibrillation: Making the Case for a Structured Clinical Nurse Specialist-Led Outpatient Clinic.

2016· article· en· W3023067400 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tori Minakakis

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLife expectancyAmbulatory careEmergency departmentOutpatient clinicMedical emergencyMultidisciplinary approachHealth careOutpatient visitsEmergency medicineFamily medicineNursingPopulationEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the life expectancy of Canadians continues to increase, so does the economic burden of chronic conditions within the health care system. One chronic condition that has increased over the past decade is atrialfibrillation (AF). With health care costs forAF estimated at more than $800 million and rising, a new approach is needed to manage AF care to reduce hospitalizations and emergency room visits, while improving patients' quality of life. Multidisciplinary outpatient clinics for heart failure patients have been implemented across Canada over the past decade, and have shown a reduction in hospital admissions and emergency room visits. It is probable that the same benefit could be seen with the implementation of a structured, nurse-led outpatient AF clinic. The purpose of this article is to review the existing literature on AF outpatient management, and establish the best approachfor a clinical nurse specialist-led AF outpatient clinic within the Canadian health care system.

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)0.059
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.065 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→