MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006713984 · doi:10.1542/peds.109.3.404

Pediatric Resident Training in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Otitis Media

2002· article· en· W2006713984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William J. Steinbach, Theodore C. Sectish

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOtitisCurriculumAccreditationMandateFamily medicineAcute otitis mediaMedical educationSyllabusPediatricsPedagogySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the presence and characteristics of formalized curricula for pediatric resident education for the diagnosis and treatment of acute otitis media. DESIGN: A survey was mailed to the program directors of all 224 accredited US and Canadian pediatric residency programs. Questions focused on the development, components, and teaching of any otitis media curriculum. Program directors were also questioned about their approach towards evaluating resident competency of otitis media and their future plans for otitis media-related training. RESULTS: A total of 144 program directors (64%) responded to the survey. Among respondents, 59% had some form of formalized education related to the diagnosis or treatment of otitis media. These curricula primarily consisted of lectures by general pediatricians <3 times per year. CONCLUSIONS: Although otitis media is the most common disease seen by practicing general pediatricians, the Residency Review Committee in Pediatrics does not mandate formal otitis media-related training. Aside from informal case-by-case education, this survey demonstrated that only slightly more than half of all pediatric residency programs have some formalized resident education of this common pediatric problem, and most of those curricula are infrequent lectures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations44
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207