E-mail communication in paediatrics: Ethical and clinical considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
E-mail has become a commonplace 'procedure' in medical practice because it is efficient and inexpensive. However, there are potential misuses and abuses of this form of written communication, with clinical and ethical implications.Common uses of e-mail in paediatics include general communication with colleagues in a professional setting; electronic formal consultation, in which patient confidentiality is paramount; electronic 'curb-side' consultation, which may be perceived as a formal consultation; electronic discussion groups, which lack peer review; communication with current patients or their parents, which should be limited to simple, nonurgent issues; and communication with individuals seeking medical advice who are not patients, which is generally ill-advised.The present practice point offers a few practical suggestions including e-mail etiquette, security measures to ensure confidentiality, development of an e-mail policy for patients and parents, and separation of personal from professional e-mail.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.101 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".