Telehealth in paediatric surgery: Accuracy of clinical decisions made by videoconference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Telehealth is a useful method of providing specialist consultation to a geographically diverse population. Canadian studies of telehealth for paediatric surgery demonstrate good accuracy, but have low numbers of cryptorchid patients in their cohorts. Our aim was to confirm Canadian studies for our cohort and to assess accuracy regarding cryptorchidism. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of patients seen via paediatric surgical telehealth over a 12-month period, to determine accuracy of telediagnosis with respect to face-to-face diagnosis and plan. RESULTS: A total of 183 children had 224 videoconferences, resulting in 74 surgical bookings. There was high diagnostic concordance, except for undescended testes. One discharged patient, and two patients booked for review, have subsequently required an orchidopexy (false negatives). Of 15 patients booked for surgery, three did not require an operation (false positives). Other patients had their procedures upgraded (from open to laparoscopic) or downgraded (from laparoscopic to open) due to inaccuracies in far-end assessment. CONCLUSION: Telehealth for paediatric surgery is accurate for most conditions seen, but for cryptorchidism there are significant concerns.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".