MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047548857 · doi:10.7775/rac.es.v88.i3.17976

Consultas vía WhatsApp en un servicio de electrofisiología de un hospital público de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires en tiempos de COVID-19

2020· article· es· W3047548857 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando Di Tommasso, Marío Fitz Maurice, Paula Sastre, Alfredo Hirschson Prado, Enrique Dominé, Pablo Agüero, Adrián Baranchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Argentina de Cardiología · 2020
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommunication and COVID-19 Impact
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineHumanities2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Political scienceArtVirologyOutbreakInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introducción: La pandemia por coronavirus (COVID-19) es altamente contagiosa. La telemedicina emerge como una opción para mantener a nuestros pacientes dentro del sistema sanitario. Objetivo: Implementar consultas por WhatsApp durante 30 días en un hospital de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (CABA) durante la cuarentena impuesta por COVID-19. Material y métodos: Se analizaron consultas por WhatsApp durante 30 días consecutivos. Se envió un formulario antes de la consulta telefónica con el especialista. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo de las consultas y los planes propuestos para el seguimiento. Resultados: Se realizaron 263 consultas en 205 pacientes. La cantidad promedio de consultas telefónicas fue de 7,8 mensajes. Las consultas más frecuentes fueron: palpitaciones (12%) y vacunación antigripal (11,7%). El seguimiento quedó dividido en grupos: 1) Resueltos vía WhatsApp: 154 pacientes; 2) Derivados a un hospital zonal: 25; 3) Derivados a nuestro hospital: 26 pacientes. Conclusión: La telemedicina vía WhatsApp es factible de ser desarrollada en un hospital público de la CABA, con una sustancial reducción de consultas presenciales.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.337
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Argentina de CardiologíaSame topicCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactFrench-language works237,207