Discrepant advice from poison centres and their medical directors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the recommendations of the medical directors of North American poison information centres for gastrointestinal decontamination of a hypothetical poisoned patient, and to examine the extent to which those recommendations agree with the advice previously issued by their poison information centres for the same scenario. METHODS: The medical directors of 72 poison centres in the United States and Canada were contacted and invited to participate in a survey. Each participant was asked to provide specific advice for gastrointestinal decontamination of a hypothetical patient presenting 1 h after a potentially life-threatening ingestion (32.5 g) of enteric-coated acetylsalicylic acid. The directors were then presented with the recommendation their poison centres had previously issued for the same overdose scenario. The main outcome measures were perceived agreement with their own centre's recommendation and director-centre concordance for each method of gastrointestinal decontamination. RESULTS: Sixty-seven of 72 (93%) medical directors participated in the survey. They issued 30 different management suggestions for our hypothetical patient, and were in full agreement with their own centres 27% of the time. Concordance was moderate for recommendations on syrup of ipecac (k=0.468, P<0.001), and fair for whole bowel irrigation (k=0.348, P=0.005) and the use of sorbitol with activated charcoal (k=0.305, P=0.005). Concordance was poorest for advice on gastric lavage (k=0.093, P=0.445) and multidose charcoal (k=0.039, P=0.745). CONCLUSIONS: The medical directors of North American poison centres offer widely varying advice on gastrointestinal decontamination for a hypothetical patient who is acutely poisoned with enteric-coated acetylsalicylic acid. Their advice was often different from that previously issued by their respective centres.
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 | 0.036 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".