Successful use of telemedicine for evaluation of infantile hemangiomas during the early COVID‐19 pandemic: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a rapid expansion in the use of telemedicine. This study aimed to assess the experiences of hemangioma specialists utilizing telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic to evaluate and manage infantile hemangiomas (IH), including perceived effectiveness of different modalities and barriers to care delivery. METHODS: Multicenter cross-sectional study asking providers to describe their experiences using telemedicine for initial evaluation of IH from March to September 2020. RESULTS: The study included 281 patients from 15 medical centers internationally. Median time from referral to evaluation was 17 days. Median physician confidence in performing evaluations via telemedicine was 95.0 (IQR 90.0-100.0). Most evaluations were performed via video communication with photographs or audio communication with photographs; when not initially available, photographs were requested in 51.4%. Providers preferred follow-up modalities that included photographs. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians with extensive expertise in managing IH are confident in their abilities to assess and manage IH via telemedicine including initiating treatment in patients without risk factors for beta-blocker therapy. There was a preference for hybrid modalities that included photographs. The data suggest that telemedicine can be effective for managing IH and may decrease wait times and improve specialist reach to underserved areas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".