MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W113071021

Sports and the solitary kidney: how to counsel parents.

2006· article· en· W113071021 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Psooy

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Trauma and Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSAFERMedicineRenal injuryInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsMedical emergencyPoison controlKidneyComputer securityInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine how to counsel parents of young children with a solitary kidney in a manner compliant with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). METHODS: As per the AAP recommendations, the relevant information required to provide a Qualified Yes to involvement in contact/collision sports was obtained through a PubMed search and local inquiries. Questions specifically addressed were: . Available published information on risks of participation . Availability of effective protective equipment that is acceptable to the athlete . Whether the sport can be modified to allow safer participation. RESULTS: Pediatric renal trauma can result from sporting injuries, however more renal injuries are caused by motor vehicle accidents. Those sports associated with a higher risk of significant renal injury carry a five-fold higher risk of head injury. Tolerable protective equipment is available, but whether it decreases risk of renal trauma is unknown. Participation in high-risk sports can be modified to allow safer participation. CONCLUSIONS: Parents need to be counseled on the consequences of an injury to the solitary kidney, and potential ways to decrease such risks without being unnecessarily restrictive with respect to sports participation. Specific information to convey to parents in a concise manner is provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAbdominal Trauma and InjuriesFrench-language works237,207