Screening practices for paediatric asymptomatic adrenal suppression in Canada: Are we addressing this important risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Children with adrenal suppression (AS), a potential side effect of glucocorticoids (GCs) may be asymptomatic, present with nonspecific signs and symptoms or with adrenal crisis. Asymptomatic AS (AAS) can only be diagnosed through screening. Identifying and treating asymptomatic patients before symptoms develop may reduce morbidity. Screening guidelines for AS are lacking. Consequently, screening practices are highly variable. Objective To assess (1) the screening practices for and recognition of paediatric AAS among clinicians in Canada and (2) the educational impact of a 2-year surveillance program of symptomatic AS cases. Methods Before and after a 2-year Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) study of symptomatic AS, participants were surveyed through the CPSP. The prestudy survey was sent to 2,548 participants in March 2010 and the poststudy survey was sent to 2,465 participants in April 2013. Results Response rates were 32% for the prestudy survey and 21% for the poststudy survey. Between the pre- and poststudy surveys, the percentage of physicians who reported routinely screening patients on GCs for AS increased from 10% to 21% and the percentage who reported having a screening policy in their office/centre increased from 6% to 11%. There was no significant change in the percentage of physicians who had diagnosed a child/youth with AAS in the preceding year. Conclusion Frequency of screening for AAS increased following the 2-year study but remains low. Development of a clinical practice guideline should increase both awareness of asymptomatic AS among Canadian paediatricians and the identification of AAS, before symptoms develop.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".