Testing and Treatment After Adolescent Sexual Assault in Pediatric Emergency Departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine rates of recommended of testing and prophylaxis for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and pregnancy in adolescents diagnosed with sexual assault across pediatric emergency departments (EDs) and to determine whether specialized sexual assault pathways and teams are associated with performance of recommended testing and prophylaxis. METHODS: In this retrospective study of 12- to 18-year-old adolescents diagnosed with sexual assault at 38 EDs in the Pediatric Hospital Information System database from 2004 to 2013, information regarding routine practice for sexual assault evaluations and presence and year of initiation of specialized ED sexual assault pathways and teams was collected via survey. We examined across-hospital variation and identified patient- and hospital-level factors associated with testing and prophylaxis using logistic regression models, accounting for clustering by hospital. RESULTS: Among 12,687 included cases, 93% were female, 79% were <16 years old, 34% were non-Hispanic white, 38% were non-Hispanic black, 21% were Hispanic, and 52% had public insurance. Overall, 44% of adolescents received recommended testing (chlamydia, gonorrhea, pregnancy) and 35% received recommended prophylaxis (chlamydia, gonorrhea, emergency contraception). Across EDs, unadjusted rates of testing ranged from 6% to 89%, and prophylaxis ranged from 0% to 57%. Presence of a specialized sexual assault pathway was associated with increased rates of prophylaxis even after adjusting for case-mix and temporal trends (odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.86). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation and treatment of adolescent sexual assault victims varied widely across pediatric EDs. Adolescents cared for in EDs with specialized sexual assault pathways were more likely to receive recommended prophylaxis.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".