MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387185540 · doi:10.52609/jmlph.v3i3.90

Evacuating Patients with Ongoing Dialysis

2023· article· en· W4387185540 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sharafaldeen Bin Nafisah, Salem Alammi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Medicine Law & Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialysisMedicineMedical emergencyIntensive care medicinePlan (archaeology)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Efficient planning is crucial for the safe evacuation of dialysis patients during a disaster. The lack of evidence-based approaches for evacuating these patients highlights the need to explore the associated challenges and develop a comprehensive plan to address the unique vulnerabilities of this cohort. Methods: Information was gathered using three methods: First, a thorough literature search was conducted. Secondly, a focus group was established, comprising experts in nephrology, biomedical engineering and safety engineering, as well as senior dialysis nurses. Finally, the research team visited a dialysis centre to examine the dialysis machines and engage in discussions regarding evacuation plans. Results: Three procedures were identified to promptly release patients from a dialysis machine: the ‘clamp and cut’ method, the ‘clamp and cap’ method, and the hand crank method. Factors such as the size and weight of the dialysis machine, battery life, and potential blood loss resulting from immediate interruption of the dialysis process were noted as important considerations. Conclusion: It is essential that dialysis patients be recognized as a vulnerable group, and that time and effort be invested in the design of an evacuation plan specific to their needs.

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)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Medicine Law & Public HealthSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207