Clinician Knowledge of Societal Guidelines on Management of Gastrointestinal Complications in Esophageal Atresia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess whether clinicians approached the management of children with esophageal atresia (EA) in accordance with the 2016 European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN)/North American Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) guidelines on the management of gastrointestinal and nutritional complications in this cohort. METHODS: We invited expert physicians and surgeons closely involved in the care of children with EA (members of the International network on esophageal atresia [INoEA], ESPGHAN EA working group, French national EA registry, European pediatric surgical association (EUPSA), and European rare disease reference network [ERNICA]) to participate in an anonymous online survey containing 15 multiple choice questions concerning the management of gastrointestinal and nutritional complications in children with EA. Questions were based on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) dysphagia, cyanotic spells, feeding and nutrition, anastamotic strictures, and transition to adult care as detailed in the 2016 guidelines. RESULTS: Median concordance with ESPGHAN/NASPHAN EA Guidelines was 69% (16-100%, SD 16%) across all responders. Areas of greatest concordance were in the fields of surveillance endoscopy and medical management of GERD. Areas for potential educational opportunities include: the differential diagnosis and appropriate investigation of dysphagia and the diagnostic evaluation of extraesophageal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights the importance of improving the understanding and adherence to the EA guidelines amongst clinicians involved in the care of these patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".