In perspective: the patient at the heart of research in acute cardiovascular care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient and public involvement is a fundamental part of research design and is increasingly required by research funders and regulators. In addition to the moral and ethical arguments in its favour, it has the potential to improve the accessibility and transparency of research and to optimize study recruitment and retention. Whilst clinical trials in acute cardiovascular care have traditionally focussed on 'hard' outcomes, such as mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events, there is increasing recognition that these fail to capture the full breadth of patient experience. Patient-centred outcomes aim to measure things of greater value to patients, using validated tools to quantify symptoms, patient self-reports, or novel outcomes such as days alive and outside hospital. This In Perspective commentary explores the rationale behind patient and public involvement and the background to and evidence supporting the use of patient-centred outcomes and discusses potential challenges and how they can be mitigated.
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 | 0.053 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.063 | 0.087 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".