MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313264413 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2022.0467

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Urological Care

2022· article· en· W4313264413 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Umbehr, Adrian Wagg, Muhammad Hamza Habib, Jodi Antonelli, Bilal Chughtai, Thomas L. Jang, Alain Kaldany, Biren Saraiya, Ryan D. Stephenson, Christina Sze, Andreas Wiedemann, Christopher A. Jones, Mathias Schlögl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralPalliative careUrinary systemLower urinary tract symptomsUrinary incontinenceGenitourinary systemIntensive care medicineGeneral surgeryFamily medicineNursingUrologyInternal medicineCancerProstate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients receiving palliative care (PC) can present with or develop a host of urological needs or complications. These needs can include attention to sexual health, urinary incontinence, genitourinary bleeding, and urinary tract obstruction by benign, malignant, or urinary stone diseases. These varied conditions require that PC clinicians understand invasive and noninvasive medical, surgical, and radiation options for treatment. This article, written by a team of urologists, geriatricians, and PC specialists, offers information and guidance to PC teams in an accessible "Top Ten Tips" format to increase comfort with and skills around assessment, evaluation, and specialist referral for urological conditions common in the PC setting.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.027

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207