Waiting for children’s surgery in Canada: the Canadian Paediatric Surgical Wait Times project
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In addition to possibly prolonged suffering and anxiety, extended waits for children's surgery beyond critical developmental periods has potential for lifelong impact. The goal of this study was to determine the duration of waits for surgery for children and youth at Canadian paediatric academic health sciences centres using clinically-derived access targets (i.e., the maximum acceptable waiting periods for completion of specific types of surgery) as used in this Canadian Paediatric Surgical Wait Times project. METHODS: We prospectively applied standardized wait-time targets for surgery, created by nominal-group consensus expert panels, to pediatric patients at children's health sciences centres across Canada with decision-to-treat dates of Sept. 1, 2007 or later. From Jan. 1 to Dec. 30, 2009, patients' actual wait times were compared with their target wait times to determine the percentage of patients receiving surgery after the target waiting period. RESULTS: Overall, 27% of pediatric patients from across Canada (17,411 of 64,012) received their surgery after their standardized target waiting period. Dentistry, ophthalmology, plastic surgery and cancer surgery showed the highest percentages of surgeries completed past target. INTERPRETATION: Many children wait too long for surgery in Canada. Specific attention is required, in particular, in dentistry, ophthalmology, plastic surgery and cancer care, to address children's wait times for surgery. Improved access may be realized with use of national wait-time targets.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it