MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191332580 · doi:10.1111/pde.14748

Barriers to healthcare access in pediatric dermatology: A systematic review

2021· review· en· W3191332580 on OpenAlex
Jeffrey Toy, Allison Gregory, Wingfield Rehmus

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Dermatology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth carePsychological interventionSociocultural evolutionScope (computer science)MEDLINEFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barriers to healthcare access are healthcare inequities that have been widely studied across different medical specialties. No studies have previously evaluated the state of barriers to healthcare access research in pediatric dermatology. A systematic review was conducted to examine the types of barriers identified within pediatric dermatology literature. Relevant information was extracted and categorized into the themes of systemic, sociocultural, or individual barriers. The systemic barriers we found include finances, wait times, and geography. The sociocultural barriers included culture beliefs and communication. Patient beliefs and health knowledge were found as individual barriers. The small number and limited scope of studies we identified suggest that barriers to healthcare access in pediatric dermatology remain an understudied topic. Additional research is needed to further characterize these barriers to dermatologic care, as well as the impact of any interventions designed to overcome them.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.376 · 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