MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900259824 · doi:10.1111/acem.13656

Pediatric Emergency Care Research Networks: A Research Agenda

2018· article· en· W2900259824 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Stoner, Prashant Mahajan, Silvia Bressan, Samuel H. F. Lam, Corrie E. Chumpitazi, Aaron E. Kornblith, Seth W. Linakis, Damian Roland, Stephen B. Freedman, Lise E. Nigrovic, Kurt R. Denninghoff, Paul Ishimine, Nathan Kuppermann

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodPediatric emergency medicineMedical emergencyCollaborative networkEmergency departmentNursingKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pediatric emergency care research networks have evolved substantially over the past two decades. Some networks are specialized in specific areas (e.g., sedation, simulation) while others study a variety of medical and traumatic conditions. Given the increased collaboration between pediatric emergency research networks, the logical next step is the development of a research priorities agenda to guide global research in emergency medical services for children (EMSC). OBJECTIVES: An international group of pediatric emergency network research leaders was assembled to develop a list of research priorities for future collaborative endeavors within and between pediatric emergency research networks. METHODS: Before an in-person meeting, we used a modified Delphi approach to achieve consensus around pediatric emergency research network topic priorities. Further discussions took place on May 15, 2018, in Indianapolis, Indiana, at the Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference "Aligning the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Research Agenda to Reduce Health Outcome Gaps." Here, a group of 40 organizers and participants met in a 90-minute "breakout" session to review and further develop the initial priorities. RESULTS: We reached consensus on five clinical research priorities that would benefit from collaboration among the existing and future emergency networks focused on EMSC: sepsis, trauma, respiratory conditions, pharmacology of emergency conditions, and mental health emergencies. Furthermore, we identified nonclinical research priorities categorized under the domains of technology, knowledge translation, and organization/administration of pediatric emergency care. CONCLUSION: The identification of pediatric emergency care network research priorities within the domains of clinical care, technology, knowledge translation and organization/administration of EMSC will facilitate and help focus collaborative research within and among research networks globally. Engagement of essential stakeholders including EMSC researchers, policy makers, patients, and their caregivers will stimulate advances in the delivery of emergency care to children around the globe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.213 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207