Current Trends in the Management of Common Painful Conditions of Preschool Children in United States Pediatric Emergency Departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trends in pain management practice by Pediatric Emergency Medicine fellows in the United States were described and analyzed. Self-administered surveys on pain management practices conducted among Pediatric Emergency Medicine fellows at the national Pediatric Emergency Medicine fellows' annual conference in 1996 and 2004 were compared. In comparison to the 1996 survey, the 2004 survey noted a significant increase in narcotics use for headache (6% versus 12%; P = .001), abdominal pain (4% versus 50%; P = .001), and burn patients (46% versus 68%; P = .001). There was also an increase in reported use of topical/ local anesthetics for venipuncture (6% versus 18%, P = .001) and lumbar puncture (49% versus 80%; P = .001), and ketamine for repairing lacerations (16% versus 56%; P = .001), incision and drainage (12% versus 58%; P = .001), and reduction of fractures (38% versus 79%; P = .001). The reported use of pain medication use by Pediatric Emergency Medicine fellows increased during the study period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".