Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The present review focuses on the latest evidence from the past 18 months related to pediatric hospitalist medicine. RECENT FINDINGS: The number of hospitalists continues to increase despite many programs not being financially self-supporting. Reports in the past have shown decreased length of stay, resource utilization, and costs with the hospitalist model. There are an increasing number of studies examining patient safety, quality initiatives, and communication issues such as 'handoffs' and family-centered rounds. The teaching role continues to broaden in scope and is highly valued by trainees. Pediatric hospitalist fellowship training programs are in an early stage of development. A list of core competencies as a framework for a pediatric hospital medicine curriculum has recently been published and should help to facilitate and standardize training. Recent publications suggest that there is still significant variation in the approach to and management of many common inpatient illnesses. SUMMARY: In general, there continue to be reports of positive outcomes as a result of the introduction of the hospitalist model in pediatrics. Much of the current literature is geared toward reporting on alternative models of care, inpatient quality and safety initiatives, and hospitalist teaching. What is still somewhat lacking is multicenter collaborative prospective clinical trials for common inpatient general pediatric conditions. The variation reported in the management of common conditions presents an opportunity for improving the quality, safety, resource utilization, and appropriateness of care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".