MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An evidence‐based approach to the 12‐min consultation for a child with Down’s syndrome

2012· review· en· W1532840600 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vikas Malik, R.U. Verma, Vasdev Singh Joshi, P.Z. Sheehan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Otolaryngology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Down's syndrome is the commonest genetic condition. ENT problems are common in these children and can affect their development and quality of life. METHOD: English literature review and experience of the senior author in managing ENT problems in children and adults with Down's syndrome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We carried out a Medline search on 31/03/2012 of English language publications using the following keywords: Down/Down's syndrome, hearing loss, ear infections, sleep apnoea, thyroid. RESULTS: The prevalence, presenting features and management of many common ENT conditions are significantly different in children who have Down's syndrome. This is particularly true of otitis media with effusion and sleep-disordered breathing. CONCLUSION: The outpatient consultation for a child with Down's syndrome should assess a range of specific ENT problems affecting this patient group including hearing issues, sleep-disordered breathing, recurrent upper respiratory tract infections, as well as other health conditions like hypothyroidism, atlantoaxial instability and cardiac issues, which can potentially affect the management of the patient.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.349
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical OtolaryngologySame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207