MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556420133 · doi:10.1515/reveh-2016-0019

Environmental pediatrics: an introduction and evaluation of online resources

2016· review· en· W2556420133 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hannah Weinstangel, Irena Buka, Sandy Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews on Environmental Health · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster University
FundersWomen and Children's Health Research Institute
KeywordsChecklistMedicineEnvironmental healthPublic healthResource (disambiguation)Scientific evidenceHealth promotionMedical educationFamily medicinePsychologyNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that three million children under the age of 5 die annually from environmentally related disease. In the United States, the cost of environmentally related public health concerns is estimated as greater than $55 billion. Environmental exposure is among parents' top health concerns for children. Yet, the study of the effects of environmental exposure on health outcomes is a developing field, and clinicians feel inadequately prepared to address these concerns. The Children's Environmental Health Clinic (ChEHC) is the first clinic of its kind in Canada. Their website includes a list of online resources on major topics related to child health and the environment. There has not yet been an objective evaluation of the comprehensiveness of the topics or scientific quality of the information on the website. This study seeks to offer an accessible introduction to the field of environmental pediatrics, including an online resource for evidence-based information on key topics in the field. These resources assist in disease prevention, health promotion, education, and the increasing need to balance environmental health risks. METHODS: A scoping review of scientific and gray literature in the field of environmental pediatrics was performed to inform a written introduction to the field and to identify gaps in the content of the ChEHC website. The content of the ChEHC website was then objectively evaluated using the National Network of Libraries of Medicine checklist for health websites. RESULTS: Ten categories within the field of environmental pediatrics emerged from the literature review. A small number of gaps were identified on the website and in the literature. The content of the ChEHC website was found to be of high quality. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: The website will be updated using the results of the study as a guide, to make it as relevant, complete, and evidence-based as possible. CONCLUSIONS: Environmental pediatrics is an important, emerging topic. There is a need for accessible, evidence-based pediatric environmental health resources for clinicians and the general public. The products of this study (a publication and website) respond to that need and thus assist in disease prevention and health promotion.

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 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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.176
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.176
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0180.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews on Environmental HealthSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207