Modeling for Change of Daily Nurse Calls After Surgery in an Orthopedics Ward Using Bayesian Statistics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurse call data may be used to evaluate the quality of nursing. However, traditional frequency-based statistics may not easily apply to nurse calls due to the large individual variability and daily call changes. We intended to propose a probabilistic modeling of nurse calls based on Bayesian statistics. We constructed the model including nurse call daily changes, individual variability, and adjustment according to characteristics (age and sex). Nurse call differences after surgery were analyzed based on data from the orthopedic ward from April 2014 to October 2017. Results show that there were differences in nurse calls from day 1 to day 10 after surgery between patients who had undergone orthopedic surgery and those who had undergone other surgeries such as tumor surgery. Furthermore, there were differences in nurse calls from day 1 to day 8 after surgery between patients who used extra pain relief medicine and those who did not. Although the analysis required multiple comparisons regarding daily nurse call changes and fixed data samples per day, our approach using Bayesian statistics could detect the periods and significant differences. This indicates that our nurse call modeling based on Bayesian statistics may be used to analyze nurse call changes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".