MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586575118 · doi:10.1093/pch/14.suppl_a.24a

Travel-Related Illnesses and Conditions

2009· article· en· W2586575118 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Grenier, A-M Ugnat, Roderick Skinner, Melanie Laffin Thibodeau

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RESULTS:A total of 173 unique journals with 47,227 unique RCTs, of which 43,322 (92%) had age-specific categorization were included; 28,991 (67%) were RCTs with only adults enrolled, 5,895 (14%) were RCTs with only children enrolled, and the remaining 8,436 (19%) were categorized as RCTs with both adults and children enrolled.Adult RCTs increased by an average of 90.5 RCTs/yr (95% CI: 78-103), which was significantly higher (p<.0001) than pediatric RCTs which rose by 16.9 RCTs/yr (95% CI: 11-22) or RCTs involving both children and adults which rose by 22.7 RCTs/yr (95% CI: 10-35).79% (23/29) of specialties demonstrated a greater rise in the number of published RCTs/yr involving adults than those enrolling children.A greater rise in RCTs/yr in children compared with adults was found in immunology and tropical medicine; no difference in secular trends between adult and childhood age groups was found for allergy, behavioral sciences, microbiology, and toxicology.CONCLUSION: Adult RCT publications are increasing at a faster rate than pediatric RCTs in almost all specialties.If RCTs are considered the gold standard for assessing safety and efficacy of interventions, this has implications for the quality of evidence-based care delivered to children.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207