Status and analysis of patient educational materials publication from domestic and abroad anesthesia associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To understand the status of patient educational materials publication from domestic and abroad anesthesia associations, so as to provide evidence for improvement of local educational materials. Methods In November 2016, we searched and screened the educational materials for patient with general anesthesia provided by domestic and abroad anesthesia associations. The education materials and information of associations were collected and analyzed by QSR Nvivo 8.0 software. Results A total of 12 anesthesia associations from 8 countries were involved, which provided various forms of materials. Content analysis revealed 16 themes, in which there were 3 themes mentioned by all of the associations, while 3 themes only mentioned by less than half of the associations. Conclusions Numerous anesthesia associations from different countries issued a variety of educational materials in various forms, and more associations are encouraged to participate in releasing online materials in the future. Most of the educational content can reach a consensus, while a small amount of content need further research to verify necessity of education in the future. The anesthesiology association of China only issued one patient educational material for anesthesia patients, which need to be further improved on abundance of content, ultimately, develop an educational material suitable for local patient. Key words: Anesthesia; Health education; Association
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".