Development of the Pediatric Social Risk Instrument Using a Structured Panel Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health impact child illness. Currently, no instrument exists to identify social need during hospital admission. METHODS: Using the UCLA (University of California Los Angeles)-RAND appropriateness method, consensus was reached for an instrument to identify social need in hospitalized children. A panel of 11 experts reviewed candidate indicators through 3 rounds to reach consensus. The instrument then underwent usability testing. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-seven indicators from the literature were sorted into 18 social risk themes. After 3 rounds, consensus was reached on 82 indicators. Six additional social risk themes were recommended by the panel, resulting in consensus for 18 additional indicators. Final refinement resulted in an instrument containing 86 indicators representing 11 social risk themes. Usability testing identified that the tool was well received by families. Final feedback was incorporated into a post-usability instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Using the UCLA-RAND appropriateness method, a new pediatric social risk instrument was created to identify social need for hospitalized 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it