Practising physician's knowledge and patterns of practice regarding the asplenic state: the need for improved education and a practical checklist.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine physicians' knowledge and actions regarding the asplenic state and to develop a practical checklist to aid in the systematic education and management of asplenic patients. DESIGN: A prospective cohort survey utilizing an experienced nurse practitioner and a survey questionnaire with on-site interviews. SETTING: The Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. SUBJECTS: A cohort of 122 physicians serving a population base of 350,000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Beliefs and practices relating to vaccination and precautions necessary for adult and pediatric splenectomized patients. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: The majority of physicians appeared to be knowledgeable about potential conditions affecting splenic function, except in the case of severe liver disease with portal hypertension and collagen vascular disease. There appeared to be good understanding on the part of most physicians of the risks associated with various infectious diseases and the asplenic state, except in the case of Capnocytophaga canimorsus infection linked to dog bites and the increased susceptibility of asplenic patients to intraerythrocytic parasites. Although a majority of physicians were cognizant of the need for pneumococcal vaccination and other immunizations in adults, there was marked uncertainty in relation to the need and the appropriate time interval for revaccination. In the case of children there appeared to be uncertainty regarding the role of antibiotic prophylaxis. There were discrepancies between physicians' expressed attitudes and the actions actually taken for asplenic patients in individual practices. CONCLUSIONS: Further education is required concerning the management of asplenic patients. The systematic use of a practical checklist may facilitate this process.
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 | 0.016 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".