MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402994114 · doi:10.32598/jnrcp.2406.1118

Transforming the future of nursing care: Artificial intelligence in pediatrics autism nursing care

2024· article· en· W4402994114 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Osuji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Reports in Clinical Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingNursing careAutismMedicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various fields, including healthcare. AI's impact is increasingly evident in managing and caring for autistic pediatric patients [1]. The integration of AI into pediatrics autism nursing care is revolutionizing the approach to diagnosis, treatment, and ongoing management of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Through their capacity to process and analyze vast amounts of data, AI technologies offer new possibilities for enhancing the precision, efficiency, and personalization of care for children with autism. ASD presents unique challenges that require specialized, often intensive, care strategies. According to Zhao et al., (2024), integrating AI into nursing care for children with autism offers promising opportunities to enhance diagnostics, personalize treatment plans, and improve overall patient outcomes [2]. This commentary explores how AI is transforming pediatric autism nursing care and the vital role nurses play in this evolving landscape. ASD is a developmental disorder characterized by challenges with social interaction, communication, and repetitive behaviors. Symptoms and their severity vary widely among individuals, making ASD a spectrum disorder. Research indicates that early diagnosis and intervention are crucial for improving outcomes, yet these can be difficult due to the complex and varied presentation of the disorder [3].

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.423 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Reports in Clinical PracticeSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207