Patient Web-Resource Interest and Internet Readiness in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The internet has been touted as a cost-effective method of providing valuable patient education and support resources. However, little is known of the level of internet interest in or access to web-based resources of most chronically ill populations generally, and pediatric populations in particular. Web-based patient resources could be especially applicable to the pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) population given the potential appeal of an anonymous forum for this group. METHODS: Tertiary-care clinic patients aged 8-18 years and diagnosed with IBD were surveyed by mail. chi and/or analysis of variance were used to compare demographic data from nonresponders and responders and for subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Of 162 eligible patients, 63 (38.9%) completed the survey. Responders did not differ significantly from nonresponders by age, sex, or distribution of disease. Overall, 98.4% of those surveyed had internet access, with 61.9% having access at school. Ninety-five percent had used the internet, while 91% expressed interest in visiting a pediatric IBD website for general IBD information (83%), for support (73%), to pose questions (78%) or read (73%) or respond (60%) to questions, or to chat with others (46%). Despite expressed interest, far fewer had ever used the internet as an IBD information (52.4%) or support (9.5%) resource. Similarly, although 15.8% anticipated visiting a pediatric IBD site weekly, only 1.5% had done so in the week of the survey. CONCLUSIONS: Reported levels of interest in web-based patient resources are high among pediatric IBD patients, yet use may be infrequent.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".