Quality of referral of short children to the paediatric endocrinologist and impact of a fax communication system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: In 2001, a chart review of children referred to the authors' endocrine clinic because of short stature revealed that many were referred with insufficient baseline data, had normal height velocity and were within genetic target height. Therefore, a two-way fax communication system was implemented between referring physicians and the authors' service before the first visit. Aspects that were assessed included whether this system increased the information accompanying the patient at referral, resulted in children with nonpathological shortness not being seen in the clinic, and was used differently by paediatricians and general practitioners. STUDY DESIGN: Between January and December 2006, 138 referrals for short stature, diagnosed with familial short stature, constitutional delay or idiopathic short stature, were audited (69 with and 69 without previous fax communication). Data collected included source of referral, clinical information provided, available growth measurements, and results from laboratory and imaging studies. RESULTS: Fax communication resulted in growth curves being provided more often (95.6% of cases versus 40.5% of cases without fax communication [P<0.001]) and more investigations being performed by the referring physician (median [range]: six [zero to 13] investigations versus one [zero to 11]; P<0.001), as well as a diagnosis of nonpathological short stature being given to 31 children based on the growth curve, laboratory and imaging results, without the children being seen in the endocrine clinic. Fax communication was also used more frequently by paediatricians (84%) than by general practitioners (15%). CONCLUSION: The fax communication system resulted in a more complete evaluation of referred patients by their physicians and reduced the number of unnecessary visits to the authors' specialty clinic while promoting medical education.
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 | 0.008 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".