MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W5808536

Satellite hemodialysis services for patients with end stage renal disease.

2014· article· en· W5808536 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathy Organ, Sandra D. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Healthcare and Medical Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemodialysisEnd stage renal diseaseSatelliteMedicineHome hemodialysisQuality of life (healthcare)Unit (ring theory)Kidney diseaseMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineNursingEngineeringPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than 40,000 Canadians are living with end stage renal disease and approximately 22,400 of those are currently being treated with hemodialysis (The Kidney Foundation of Canada, 2013). Long distance travel to access hemodialysis services can be a serious burden for patients, and travelling more than 60 minutes can mean a 20% greater risk for death, as compared with those who travel 15 minutes or less (Moist et al., 2008). Satellite hemodialysis units are seen as one solution to this problem. This study assessed the impact of services provided by one satellite hemodialysis unit on patients' satisfaction, access to care and quality of life using a qualitative interview research design. Seven patients were interviewed and three themes emerged including the burden of long distance travel before satellite services (safety, time and cost), satisfaction with satellite services (pleasant environment and continuity of care), and improved quality of life. This study showed that a satellite hemodialysis unit improved access to services and enhanced the quality of life of those patients who participated in the study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Healthcare and Medical TourismFrench-language works237,207