MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322499638 · doi:10.1177/08968608231156924

Continuous quality improvement in peritoneal dialysis: Your questions answered

2023· review· en· W4322499638 on OpenAlexaff
Shabnam Hamidi, Bourne L. Auguste

Bibliographic record

VenuePeritoneal Dialysis International · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeritoneal dialysisMedicineQuality managementIntensive care medicineQuality (philosophy)DialysisOperations managementSurgeryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) uptake around the globe has steadily increased over the last several decades as a viable alternative to haemodialysis. Continued success of this technique for patients is contingent on the application of continuous quality improvement (CQI) principles in PD practice which can improve patient outcomes and in turn lead to more successful PD programmes worldwide. In this installation of 'Your Questions Answered', we will outline an approach to quality improvement initiatives and examine the importance of CQI principles in PD practice. We will also highlight common pitfalls and provide strategies to identify potential targets for improvement within your PD programme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeritoneal Dialysis InternationalSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207