MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043850009 · doi:10.1002/art.41455

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for the Management of Pediatric Rheumatic Disease During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: Version 1

2020· article· en· W3043850009 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn M. Wahezi, Mindy S. Lo, Tamar B. Rubinstein, Sarah Ringold, Stacy P. Ardoin, Kevin J. Downes, Karla Jones, Ronald M. Laxer, Rebecca Pellet Madan, Amy S. Mudano, Amy S. Turner, David R. Karp, Jay Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis & Rheumatology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentPfizer
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Family medicineVotingPandemicRheumatic diseaseRheumatologyTask forceDelphi methodMEDLINEDiseasePhysical therapyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinical guidance to rheumatology providers who treat children with pediatric rheumatic disease (PRD) in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: The task force, consisting of 7 pediatric rheumatologists, 2 pediatric infectious disease physicians, 1 adult rheumatologist, and 1 pediatric nurse practitioner, was convened on May 21, 2020. Clinical questions and subsequent guidance statements were drafted based on a review of the queries posed by the patients as well as the families and healthcare providers of children with PRD. An evidence report was generated and disseminated to task force members to assist with 3 rounds of asynchronous, anonymous voting by email using a modified Delphi approach. Voting was completed using a 9-point numeric scoring system with predefined levels of agreement (categorized as disagreement, uncertainty, or agreement, with median scores of 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9, respectively) and consensus (categorized as low, moderate, or high). To be approved as a guidance statement, median vote ratings were required to fall into the highest tertile for agreement, with either moderate or high levels of consensus. RESULTS: The task force drafted 33 guidance statements, which were voted upon during the second and third rounds of voting. Of these 33 statements, all received median vote ratings within the highest tertile of agreement and were associated with either moderate consensus (n = 6) or high consensus (n = 27). Statements with similar recommendations were combined, resulting in 27 final guidance statements. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements have been generated based on review of the available literature, indicating that children with PRD do not appear to be at increased risk for susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This guidance is presented as a "living document," recognizing that the literature on COVID-19 is rapidly evolving, with future updates anticipated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.019

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.259 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis & RheumatologySame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207