Emergency Medicine Providers' Knowledge and Management of Pediatric Tropical Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a needs assessment of pediatric (PEM) and general emergency medicine (EM) provider knowledge, comfort, and current practice patterns in the evaluation of pediatric tropical infectious diseases. METHODS: An online survey was developed based on educational priorities identified by an expert panel via modified Delphi methodology. The survey included assessment of providers' typical evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of tropical diseases and was distributed to PEM and EM providers in 2 large professional organizations. RESULTS: A total of 333 physicians (285 PEM, 32 EM, 8 combined PEM/EM, and 8 general pediatricians in emergency department) participated. Fifty-five percent of vignettes were answered correctly. Those who trained outside the United States or Canada (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.0) and PEM-trained providers (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.9) were more likely to answer questions correctly. Providers answered more questions correctly about dengue (76%) and tuberculosis (77%) than typhoid (53%) and malaria (39%) (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 3.0-4.9). Diagnostic evaluation for tropical diseases was variable with greater than 75% agreement for only 2 tests: blood smears in febrile patients from Africa (86%) and bacterial stool cultures in patients with bloody stools from Africa, Asia, or Latin America (94%). Providers had low (62%) or medium (35%) comfort level with pediatric tropical diseases, and 93% were interested in accessing emergency department-specific resources. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric EM and EM providers' knowledge and evaluation for pediatric tropical diseases are variable. Providers recognized their knowledge gaps and expressed interest in gaining access to resources and guidelines to standardize and improve evaluation and treatment of these diseases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".