Instrumento multiprofissional de rastreio para risco de broncoaspiração em ambiente hospitalar à população idosa: evidências de validade baseada nos processos de resposta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to validate the Multiprofessional Screening Instrument for Broncho-aspiration Risk in Hospital Environment, which is aimed at the elderly population, based on response processes. METHODS: Judges applied the instrument to different patients and randomly selected. After the application, the judges were interviewed so that it was possible to verify their impression regarding the relevance of the items about their interpretation of the written content, as well as grammatical and semantic issues. Suggestions for adding alternative questions and answers were considered, as well as proposals for adapting the questions that made up the instrument. Non-verbal reactions, such as facial expressions that suggested doubts or hesitations, by the judges concerning the instrument were also analyzed. RESULTS: The agreement of the judges concerning each item of the device was calculated by the Content Validity Index (CVI) and by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and their results showed a high level of agreement. Through the suggestions of the judges, a new version of the Multi-professional Screening Instrument for the Risk of Broncho-aspiration in a Hospital Environment in the Elderly was elaborated. CONCLUSION: The results obtained showed that the validity of the Multi-professional Instrument for Screening the Risk of Broncho-aspiration in the Hospital Environment with the elderly population, based on the response processes, was achieved and makes it a promising device to assist professionals in hospital care for the elderly.
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 | 0.030 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".