Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, approximately 85% of children with significant congenital heart problems survive to adolescence and adulthood. This survival rate represents a dramatic improvement in the medical and surgical care of congenital heart disease (CHD) during the last 35 years. Nevertheless, these patients remain at increased risk for significant cardiac problems long after primary interventions are completed. They are more likely than the general population to seek urgent medical care, often in an emergency department setting. They represent a new and growing population of emergency department patients with a specialized set of problems not traditionally part of the training for emergency medicine (EM) physicians. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the current scope and status of training for EM physicians in the immediate management of CHD patients as they grow to adolescence and adulthood. METHODS: We conducted 2 cross-sectional surveys to assess the current training environment for 2 specific groups: (1) US general EM (GEM) residency programs, and (2) US and Canadian pediatric EM (PEM) fellowship programs. Surveys were mailed to program directors during the summer of 2005. A total of 198 surveys were sent out: 134 to GEM residency directors and 64 to PEM fellowship directors. RESULTS: The response rate overall was 68%, with a 64% response rate from the GEM residency directors and 77% from the PEM fellowship directors. Across all programs, 43% (56/130 respondents) were "unsure" about the existence or location of an adult CHD (ACHD) clinic in their area. When asked to rate the importance of ACHD as a training topic, 40 (85%) of 47 PEM fellowship directors and 62 (74%) of 84 GEM residency directors ranked it as "low priority" or "unnecessary." However, 70 (55%) of 127 respondents were "unsure," "uncomfortable," or "worried" about the ACHD training their trainees receive (PEM, 59%; GEM, 53%). In addition, most program directors (75%) estimated that their trainees care for 5 or fewer ACHD patients annually. CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be a mismatch between the growing need for ACHD emergency care and the current state of this topic in both GEM residency and PEM fellowship training programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.242 | 0.088 |
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".