ACCESSIBILITY AND QUALITY OF ORGANIZATION OF MEDICAL REHABILITATION TO CHILDREN AFTER NEUROIN INFECTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to an important problem - the evaluation of all the criteria for the quality of medical care provided in the clinic of the Children’s Scientific and Clinical Center for Infectious Diseases, from the standpoint of the independent opinion of patients and persons caring for patients in this institution. With the help of specially developed questionnaires, posted, including on the Institute’s website, a survey of patients and persons caring for children was conducted. Estimating the information availability it is established that according to the results of the survey 92% of respondents are satisfied with the completeness of the information provided on the Internet. Only 23.2% paid attention to the media, placed directly in the clinic. 3.5% of respondents were not satisfied with the equipment of the clinic with equipment for people with disabilities, and 56% - did not provide an answer to this question. A significant proportion of the respondents (91.4%) noted the high competence of all medical personnel, and 96.1% indicated that the medical staff was polite and benevolent. Materially thanked medical personnel for the assistance rendered by almost a quarter of respondents (24.1%). At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the absolute majority (96.8%) of the respondents expressed material gratitude on their own initiative. 14.2% of the respondents paid for additional diagnostic tests, but more than half of the respondents in this group (52.8%) paid for these studies in order to more accurately verify the diagnosis, ie, these studies were not prescribed in the procedures and standards of medical care. In conclusion, it is important to note that, in general, the interviewed people would recommend treatment in the clinic of the Children’s Scientific and Clinical Center. This fact is indicated by the results of the survey - 98.4% of the respondents confirmed this fact.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".