Design and validation of pictograms in a pediatric anaphylaxis action plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current anaphylaxis action plans (AAPs) are based on written instructions without inclusion of pictograms. OBJECTIVES: To develop an AAP with pictorial aids and to prospectively validate the pictogram components of this plan. METHODS: Participants recruited from the emergency department and allergy clinic participated in a questionnaire to validate pictograms depicting key counseling points of an anaphylactic reaction. Children ≥ 10 years of age and caregivers of children < 10 years with acute anaphylaxis or who carried epinephrine auto-injector for confirmed allergy were eligible. Guessability, translucency, and recall were assessed for 11 pictogram designs. Pictograms identified as correct or partially correct by at least 85% of participants were considered valid. Three independent reviewers assessed these outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 115 total participants, 73 (63%) were female, 76 (66%) were parents/guardians, and 39 (34%) were children aged 10-17. Overall, 10 pictograms (91%) reached ≥ 85% for correct guessability, translucency, and recall. Four pictograms were redesigned to reach the preset validation target. One pictogram depicting symptom management (5-min wait time after first epinephrine treatment) reached 82% translucency after redesign. However, it reached 98% and 100% of correct guessability and recall, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We prospectively designed and validated a set of pictograms to be included in an AAP. The incorporation of validated pictograms into an AAP may potentially increase comprehension of the triggers, signs and symptoms, and management of an anaphylactic reaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".