Quality improvement in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: Moving forward to improve outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, pediatric health care has embraced the concept of quality improvement to improve patient outcomes. As quality improvement efforts are implemented, network collaboration (where multiple centers and practices implement standardized programs) is a popular option. In a collaborative network, improvement in the conduct of structural, process and outcome quality measures can lead to improvements in overall health, and benchmarks can be used to assess and compare progress. In this review article, we provided an overview of the quality improvement movement and the role of quality indicators in this movement. We reviewed current quality improvement efforts in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), as well as other pediatric chronic illnesses. We discussed the need to standardize the development of quality indicators used in quality improvement networks to assess medical care, and the validation techniques which can be used to ensure that process indicators result in improved outcomes of clinical significance. We aimed to assess current quality improvement efforts in pediatric IBD and other diseases, such as childhood asthma, childhood arthritis, and neonatal health. By doing so, we hope to learn from their successes and failures and to move the field forward for future improvements in the care provided to children with IBD.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".