MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138779423 · doi:10.36834/cmej.36598

Does level of training Influence the ability to detect hepatosplenomegaly in children with leukemia?

2012· article· en· W2138779423 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Donna L. Johnston, Janelle Cyr

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatosplenomegalyMedicinePediatricsLeukemiaInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Children with leukemia often have hepatosplenomegaly present. This can be diagnosed with physical examination and confirmed with ultrasound. We sought to determine if level of training influenced the ability to detect hepatosplenomegaly. METHODS: All children diagnosed with leukemia during the past 5 years were reviewed. The training level of the examiner, the documentation of hepatosplenomegaly, and the ultrasound findings were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: There were 245 examinations of the spleen and 254 of the liver. Splenomegaly was correctly diagnosed by medical students 54% of the time, by residents 81%, and by staff 79% of the time. First year residents diagnosed it correctly 68% of the time, R2s 64%, R3s 76% and R4s 86% of the time. Hepatomegaly was correctly diagnosed by medical students 44% of the time, by residents 73% and by staff 68% of the time. First year residents diagnosed it correctly 77% of the time, R2s 54%, R3s 81% and R4s 75% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric residents had the best ability to detect hepatosplenomegaly, and were better than staff and medical students, although this was not statistically significant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207