MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148142007 · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2021.01.007

Telemedicine for Pediatric Nephrology: Perspectives on COVID-19, Future Practices, and Work Flow Changes

2021· review· en· W3148142007 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rupesh Raina, Nikhil Nair, Aditya Sharma, Ronith Chakraborty, Sarah Rush, Hui‐Kim Yap, Sidharth Kumar Sethi, Arvind Bagga, Pankaj Hari, Timothy E. Bunchman, Sharon Bartosh, Katherine Twombley, Gaurav Kapur, Mignon McCulloch, Guido Filler, Bradley A. Warady, María Ferris

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Pediatrics, University of FloridaUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western UniversityChildren's Mercy HospitalChildren's Hospital of MichiganJeju National University HospitalSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-MadisonAll-India Institute of Medical SciencesNational University of SingaporeUniversity of Cape TownVirginia Commonwealth UniversityUniversity of South Carolina
KeywordsTelemedicineDelphi methodMedicineWork (physics)ModalitiesPopulationIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyFamily medicineHealth careEnvironmental healthComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the use of telemedicine in rural areas has increased steadily over the years, its use was rapidly implemented during the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis. Due to this rapid implementation, there is a lack of standardized work flows to assess and treat for various nephrotic conditions, symptoms, treatment modalities, and transition processes in the pediatric population. To provide a foundation/suggestion for future standardized work flows, the authors of this report have developed standardized work flows using the Delphi method. These work flows were informed based on results from cross-sectional surveys directed to patients and providers. Most patients and providers were satisfied, 87% and 71%, respectively, with their telemedicine visits. Common issues that were raised with the use of telemedicine included difficulty procuring physical laboratory results and a lack of personal warmth during telemedicine visits. The work flows created based on these suggestions will both enhance safety in treating patients and allow for the best possible care.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney MedicineSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207