MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915635480 · doi:10.1055/s-0039-1679900

Remote Pediatric Critical Care Telephone Consultations: Quality and Outcomes

2019· article· en· W2915635480 on OpenAlex
Janice A. Tijssen, Michael R. Miller, Christopher S. Parshuram

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Intensive Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenChildren’s Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There are no studies describing the nature and quality of telephone consultations for critically ill children despite being an important part of pediatric intensive care. We described pediatric telephone consultations to a PICU in Ontario, Canada in 2011 and 2012. Of 203 consultations, 104 patients (51.2%) were admitted to the PICU; this was associated with weekend consultations (p = 0.005) and referral hospital location (p = 0.036). Frequency of interruptions was 1 in every 3.2 (2.0, 5.7) minutes and not associated with call content. Twenty-one percent of consults had limited discussion of vital signs. Our study described our center's remote critical care consultation program and outcomes.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.350 · 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