Primary Care Referral Perspectives in Pediatric Failure to Thrive and Outcomes From a Diagnostic Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Decades of data demonstrate the overwhelming rates of failure to thrive (FTT) nutritional causes (80-90%) even in patients with complex medical conditions and diagnoses. Primary care providers (PCPs), the initial FTT evaluators, have been underrepresented in the FTT literature, despite their pivotal role in overseeing management. Our purpose was to assess PCPs ’ FTT referral strategies and their concerns for their FTT patients referred to an academic pediatrician diagnostic clinic. Methods: We surveyed PCPs who referred FTT patients to a diagnostic clinic (the Diagnostic Referral Group (DRG)) for their main concern prompting referral, and next management if consult was unavailable. Chart review determined the hospitalization rates of FTT patients, and DRG interventions. Results: Of the 81 PCP responses, 66.7% were most concerned with an uncertain underlying diagnosis, contrasting with the 20.6% of patients that DRG providers suspected to have an organic etiology. PCPs ’ next preferable management was subspecialist referral (58.0%) and hospitalization (22.2%). DRG providers most commonly recommended nutritional interventions such as increasing caloric density, decreased snacking and juice, and structured meals for 72.4% of patients. Conclusions: This study suggests that FTT due to nutritional causes continues to be a challenging diagnosis for PCPs. More investigation is needed to identify interventions to empower primary providers to diagnose nutritional causes, such as practical standardized assessments to evaluate the nutritional and psychosocial FTT contributors. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2021;10(1):1-5 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/ijcp419
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".