MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406964219 · doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvae172

Nurses and allied professionals’ engagement in clinical research-in-practice: a statement of the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing & Allied Professions of the European Society of Cardiology

2025· article· en· W4406964219 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Fredericks, Julie Sanders, Maria Bäck, Lien Desteghe, Ana Filipa Gomes, Elena Marqués‐Sulé, Maggie Simpson, Jeroen Hendriks

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExcellenceWorkforceContext (archaeology)NursingMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many nurses and allied professionals (NAPs) lack the skills, knowledge and confidence to engage in conducting and implementing research. This statement describes the importance of NAPs' involvement in clinical research within the context of cardiovascular care. The existing gaps, barriers and enablers to NAPs involvement in research as a potential response to workforce issues in these professions as well as to contribute to excellence in patient care delivery and associated outcomes are identified. Specifically, career development pathways for NAPs are discussed. Finally, potential future directions for NAP research in clinical practice are provided.

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)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.300 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular NursingSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207