Use of growth charts in Canada: A National Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2010, the WHO Growth Charts for Canada were recommended for use in Canada, while the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Georgia, USA) charts remained in active use. OBJECTIVE: To assess the availability, utilization of and satisfaction with growth charts in clinical practice in Canada. METHODS: In October 2012, a one-time survey was sent through the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) to 2544 paediatricians and 280 family physicians with a stated interest in paediatrics. RESULTS: The response rate was 24% (63% general paediatricians, 36% subspecialists, 1% family physicians). Of these respondents, 68% preferred the WHO charts for infants and 49% for children and youth. Regarding the WHO charts, 49.7% of respondents reported concerns with their inability to assess weight for children >10 years of age, and many believed that there were too few percentile lines between the third and 97th percentiles for infant (24%) and for child and youth measures (19%). The addition of extreme percentiles (0.1 and 99.9), shading on charts and lack of availability with electronic medical record providers were other concerns mentioned by 10% to 13% of respondents. CONCLUSION: There is support for the use of the WHO data for monitoring the growth of Canadian children. Concerns regarding the design of the charts were raised. These survey results lend support to the redesign of the WHO Growth Charts for Canada, as was recently completed in 2014.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".