The Potential for Telehealth \nConsultations in \nCardiology and Dermatology \nin Newfoundland and Labrador: \nA Synthesis of Research Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report provides a synthesis of relevant research \nevidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness \nof telehealth technologies for specialist-patient consultations in the fields of cardiology and dermatology. The report is intended to inform and assist decision \nmakers in the Labrador-Grenfell Regional Health Authority, \nthe Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Health and Community Services and the province’s other Regional Health Authorities by providing research evidence surrounding the \neffectiveness of telehealth consultation as an intervention \nfor cardiology or dermatology patients. \nThe findings of our synthesis are specifically interpreted for the context of Newfoundland and Labrador. Decision makers from other jurisdictions, particularly those with \nsimilar features in terms of potential clients, \ngeography and resources, may also find the content helpful. \nThe report includes explanations of research terms and technical language; as such, there is no need to have a specialized medical or health background to understand its content. \n
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".