Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nurse-led interventions in ophthalmology care can enhance the overall patient experience while optimizing health care system efficiency. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of nurse-led interventions in ophthalmology care. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases for articles published from 2000 to 2023. Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies were included. Quality assessments were performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, based on study design. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included. Nurse-led interventions positively impacted patient outcomes, improved efficiency and resource utilization, enhanced patient satisfaction and adherence, maintained safety and efficacy, and demonstrated notable diagnostic accuracy. Included studies originated from different countries and employed diverse methodologies, offering a global perspective on nurse-led interventions in ophthalmology care. CONCLUSION: The findings advocate for the integration of nurse-led strategies in routine practice to realize equitable, efficient, and patient-centered eye care.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it