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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To analyze the current status of subsyndromal delirium in recent years, to provide information for the study of subsyndromal delirium in China. Methods Bibliometric methods were used to analyze the subsyndromal delirium related literature published in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Wanfang and CNKI. Results A total of 68 articles were included in 48 journals, Literature was mainly published in Canada and the United States, including observational research, systematic reviews, and experimental research. The main subjects are elderly patients from ICU, Nursing Home and Orthopedics. The research content mainly focuses on the incidence, influencing factors and prognosis of subsyndromal delirium. Conclusion In recent years, the related literature of subsyndromal delirium abroad has increased step by step, but the number of studies is generally low, and the regional development is unbalanced. Chinese researchers should pay more attention to the topic of subsyndromal delirium. The early identification and nursing intervention programs for Chinese patients are the key research directions in the future. Key words: Subsyndromal delirium; Delirium; Bibliometric analysis
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 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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it