MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408403713 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v14i3.329

Care Gaps in the Administration of Prandial Insulin for Medical Inpatients

2019· article· en· W4408403713 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shannon M. Ruzycki, Kirstie Lithgow, Karmon Helmle, Kara Nerenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-prandialMedicineAdministration (probate law)InsulinMedical careIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitusEmergency medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Inpatient hyperglycemia is associated with multiple adverse outcomes. Lack of coordination between mealtimes and insulin delivery can worsen glycemic control. Logistical challenges at a systems level effecting the timing of insulin administration have not been examined. Local Problem Previous research identified difficulties coordinating prandial insulin delivery with mealtimes as a barrier to in-hospital euglycemia. Aim Characterize the process of prandial insulin delivery to identify care gaps. Methods Process mapping was used to describe the prandial insulin delivery on a medical inpatient unit. Nurses were surveyed to identify perceived barriers to insulin delivery. Results Short-acting insulins, which should be administered 30 minutes prior to meals, were consistently administered at incorrect times. Concerns of hypoglycemia and unpredictable meal delivery times were key nursing-identified barriers to insulin administration, which were discordant from findings observed. Conclusions Environmental and system factors on the inpatient medical units contribute to delayed administration of prandial short-acting insulin.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patientsFrench-language works237,207