Engaging patient partners to identify research priorities for atrial fibrillation: Results from a patient engagement day
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
Objective: We describe a Patient Engagement Day from the Canadian Stroke Prevention Network (C-SPIN). Patients and family members were engaged as patient partners to generate and prioritize future direction for Atrial Fibrillation (AF) research. Methods: A facilitated group discussion methodology was used that included a nominal group brainstorming and decision-making technique designed to foster participation and idea generation. Results: Twenty-four patient partners attended. Priorities related to: 1) need for a curative focus and not new medication (84 %), 2) identification of triggers (53 %), and 3) home-based/remote monitoring (53 %). Use of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) found patient partners understood the intent of the day, with its objectives being met. Findings highlighted knowledge gaps by patient partners that were previously thought to be understood. Conclusion: Patient partners could benefit from more focused education about atrial fibrillation. Notably, the priorities identified by patient partners were new to the research team, reinforcing the importance of engaging with the population who will be impacted by the research. Innovation: Little research has been undertaken examining patient partner priorities regarding atrial fibrillation research. This work highlights patient partners' interest in providing input and shaping future research endeavors.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it