Analgesia Administration for Acute Abdominal Pain in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document the use of analgesia for children with acute abdominal pain in the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED) and to compare between children with suspected appendicitis in a high versus low probability. STUDY DESIGN: Patients 0-16 years recruited prospectively as part of another PED study in Toronto. History of present illness and physical examination was available, and information on analgesia administered in the PED was retrospectively collected from charts. Physicians' probability of appendicitis before any imaging was recorded. A follow-up call was made to verify final diagnosis. RESULTS: We included 438 patients, 16% with appendicitis. Analgesics were given 154 times to 112 patients. Thirty-one percent of the cohort received analgesia before seeing the physician, mostly febrile, 37% after seeing the physician, and 17% after seeing a pediatric-surgery consultant. Fifteen percent received multiple dosages. Underdosing was recorded in 14% of medications, mostly morphine (24%). Analgesia was given significantly more often to children with high probability of appendicitis. Age was not a factor in analgesia administration. CONCLUSION: Children with abdominal pain receive more analgesia when the physician suspects appendicitis, yet only in half of the cases, and only 15% receive opioids. Opioid underdosing happens in a quarter of times it is given.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it