Response to the letter to the editor—‘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’, by T. Lister
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This response refers to ‘Letter to the editor on ‘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’ by T. Lister’, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvaf079. Dear Editor, We agree with all the points that this author has made in particular ‘…cardiac physiologists play a critical role in cardiology, contributing to diagnostics, data analysis, and clinical decision-making’, as well as the points addressing ‘cardiac physiologists’ expertise and structured research training which position them as key contributors to evidence-based cardiology’.1 In our paper,2 cardiac physiologists are included in the ACNAP definition of allied professionals (as are all scientists in cardiovascular care, representing multiple professions) and so the paper is most definitely relevant to cardiac physiologists. Please note that we did not find any examples of initiatives relating to the use/initiatives of research in clinical practice; thus, we were not able to provide specific examples from this cohort. Likewise, not all professions within the allied professional definitions were stated specifically or had examples in the literature.
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 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 | 0.083 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".