Physician driven variation in the care of children with spinal muscular atrophy type 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of families are requesting active supportive management for their child with spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (SMA1), leading to longer survival and greater prevalence of affected children. Strong opinions exist among physicians for and against the provision of care measures prolonging life. OBJECTIVE: To describe current practice in the care of SMA1 in Canada, and explore the factors underlying inter-physician variability. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of Canadian hospital-based pediatric neurologists and pediatric respirologists was performed in 2015. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to compare proportions between groups. RESULTS: There was a 54% completion rate (99 physicians). Over half of participants believed that a disease modifying therapy was likely within 10 years. Quebec respirologists were 50 times less likely to offer long-term non-invasive ventilation (NIV) than respirologists in other provinces (OR 50.6, 95% CI 2.4-1075.3), and 20 times less likely to discuss tracheostomy with families (OR 20.4, 95% CI 2.0-211.8). High raters of perceived happiness of affected children were more likely to find NIV an acceptable measure for acute (OR 6.7, 95% CI 1.7-26.0) and chronic (OR 13.7, 95% CI 4.0-46.4) respiratory failure and prophylactic use (OR 5.8, 95% CI 2.2-15.6). CONCLUSION: Physician knowledge, opinions, subjective perception of child happiness, and regional factors, all influence physicians' practices and the shared decision-making process. Parents may not be informed or offered all the services available to their child. Knowledge translation initiatives are needed to enhance SMA1 care. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2017;52:662-668. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".