Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to derive a simple clinical scoring instrument for assessing children with croup by telephone for use in clinical research studies. METHODS: We reviewed published literature on croup scores, surveyed experienced pediatric emergency nurses and physicians, and conducted a prospective cohort study. Score items were derived from published literature and surveys of experienced clinicians. We enrolled children with croup attending an urban pediatric emergency department. Families of children enrolled were contacted daily by telephone and asked standardized questions about their child's clinical symptoms and family functioning. Data from this survey were used to derive the clinical score. RESULTS: We identified 11 unique croup scores from the literature and interviewed 6 experienced clinicians. We enrolled 330 children and achieved complete follow-up for 301. Of the various groupings of items and duration of assessment, the 2-item score (barky cough and stridor) was the simplest and most reliable. Three days of follow-up yielded optimal correlations. CONCLUSIONS: We derived a 2-item Telephone Out Patient score assessed daily for 3 days after an emergency department visit. Validation of this score in a future, independent prospective cohort is needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".