MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323805428 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2015-110178

Postfracture pain in children can be adequately managed with ibuprofen

2015· letter· en· W2323805428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin Boon Leong Lim

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIbuprofenMorphineRandomized controlled trialCodeineEmergency departmentAnalgesicAnesthesiaPediatricsSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary to: Poonai N, Bhullar G, Lin K, et al. Oral administration of morphine versus ibuprofen to manage postfracture pain in children: a randomized trial. CMAJ 2014;186:1358–63[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2]. Untreated or undertreated pain in children can have short-term and long-term problems.1 ,2 For fractures in children, it is widely accepted that the most severe pain occurs in the first 48 h postinjury. Following recent warnings from Health Canada on the safety of codeine,3 ,4 there has been an increased use of morphine and anti-inflammatory medication for postfracture pain. This study was carried out to compare the efficacy of the morphine with ibuprofen for fracture pain in children. This randomised controlled trial was conducted in the paediatric emergency department at the Children's Hospital in London, Ontario. Children aged between 5 and17 years of age with a radiographically evident extremity fracture sustained in the preceding 24 h were invited … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCMAJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1503%252Fcmaj.140907%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F25349008%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=cmaj&resid=186/18/1358&atom=%2Febmed%2F20%2F3%2F105.atom

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207