122: Experience with Abdominal Injury: A Survey of Child Maltreatment Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdominal trauma is an uncommon and poorly recognized form of child abuse associated with a high risk of mortality. Abuse is considered as a possible cause when the mechanism of the injury is poorly explained and/or there are other indicators of physical abuse. Physicians may also screen for occult abdominal injuries in the context of other signs of physical abuse, however currently no recognized guideline exists for the identification of occult inflicted abdominal injuries The goal of this study was to describe the current practices of Canadian experts in Child Maltreatment in the assessment of abdominal injury. This information will help inform the future development of national guidelines on this topic. A 21- item survey was developed and reviewed for content. The anonymous electronic survey was sent to participants in the 4th Canadian Symposium on Advanced Practices in Child Abuse Pediatrics and to the Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS) Child Maltreatment section members. The survey contained questions on demographics, experience and current practices with cases of abdominal trauma and approach to clinical scenarios. The survey was completed by 46 of 162 individuals (54 Symposium participants and 108 Section members) for a response rate 28.4%. Respondents were primarily pediatricians (88.1%). Cases of abdominal trauma had been assessed by 65.9% of respondents, with 76.9% of these having seen one to five cases. Cases most commonly involved injuries to the liver (n=16 [61.5%]), intestine (n=13 [50%]), spleen (n=9 [34.6%]) and pancreas (n=8 [30.8%]). Occult solid organ and intestinal injuries were identified through screening bloodwork, however mesentery/vascular injuries were not. Most physicians (97%) sometimes or always ordered screening tests for abdominal injury in cases of suspected physical abuse. The most frequently ordered tests were AST (n=38 [97.4%]), ALT (n=37 [94.9%]), amylase (n=26 [66.7%]), lipase (n=26 [66.7%]) and urinalysis (n=26 [66.7%]). Respondents were most likely (65.8%) to recommend a CT scan if suspecting a possible visceral injury, however 26.3% recommended an ultrasound. Most respondents (81.6%) favoured a national guideline on this topic, with 50% indicating that there were areas of controversy/uncertainty that created difficulty in formulating a child maltreatment opinion on cases. This study provides a description of the current experiences and practices in cases of abdominal injury of Canadian child maltreatment physicians. There is substantial variability in number of cases assessed, organs involved, and medical testing used in assessments. Child maltreatment pediatricians support the need for a clinical guideline on this topic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".