Screening for Iron Deficiency Anemia in at Risk Children in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitudes and reported practices of physicians regarding screening for iron deficiency anemia in at-risk children in pediatric emergency departments (PEDs) across Canada. METHODS: A standardized survey was mailed to 183 PED physicians at 10 tertiary care PED across Canada. The practices and attitudes regarding screening for iron deficiency anemia were collected via a questionnaire consisting of single select closed-ended items and items which required ranking in order of importance. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent (111/183) of physicians responded to the survey. Ninety-six percent of respondents do not routinely screen for iron deficiency anemia. One third of respondents believed that screening for iron deficiency anemia in the PED is possible. The remaining stated lack of time, difficulty with follow-up, it not being an emergent issue and cost as prohibitive factors. One third of participants stated that 21% to 40% of the pediatric patients seen in their PED did not have a primary care physician. The main considerations in deciding on whom to perform venipuncture were based on dietary history and physical examination with a history of consumption of milk greater than 24 ounces per day (94%) and conjunctival or skin pallor (97%, 94%, respectively) selected as the most important items. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that Canadian PED physicians are not routinely screening for iron deficiency anemia, although they demonstrate knowledge of the risk factors for iron deficiency anemia and recognize the importance of diagnosis and treatment to prevent long-term morbidity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".