MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166123574 · doi:10.1542/peds.2010-0910

Children With Medical Complexity: An Emerging Population for Clinical and Research Initiatives

2011· review· en· W2166123574 on OpenAlexafffund
Eyal Cohen, Dennis Z. Kuo, Rishi Agrawal, Jay G. Berry, Santi K. M. Bhagat, Tamara D. Simon, Rajendu Srivastava

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationEducation and Early Childhood DevelopmentHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentArkansas Biosciences InstituteHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Utah
KeywordsMedicineHealth careDiversity (politics)Service (business)PopulationChronic diseaseNursingFamily medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with medical complexity (CMC) have medical fragility and intensive care needs that are not easily met by existing health care models. CMC may have a congenital or acquired multisystem disease, a severe neurologic condition with marked functional impairment, and/or technology dependence for activities of daily living. Although these children are at risk of poor health and family outcomes, there are few well-characterized clinical initiatives and research efforts devoted to improving their care. In this article, we present a definitional framework of CMC that consists of substantial family-identified service needs, characteristic chronic and severe conditions, functional limitations, and high health care use. We explore the diversity of existing care models and apply the principles of the chronic care model to address the clinical needs of CMC. Finally, we suggest a research agenda that uses a uniform definition to accurately describe the population and to evaluate outcomes from the perspectives of the child, the family, and the broader health care system.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.759
GPT teacher head0.677
Teacher spread0.081 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,321
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207