Mind the Gap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The transition from pediatric to adult care is a critical time when adolescent patients and their families face many challenges. This period can be associated with an increase in disease-related morbidity and mortality. The aim of our study is to identify gaps in transition-related care to help guide areas for improvement. METHODS: Patients (14-19 years) with juvenile idiopathic arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus and one of their parents were recruited from the McMaster Rheumatology Transition Clinic. Both were asked to complete the Mind the Gap questionnaire, a validated tool to assess experience and satisfaction with transition care in a clinic setting. The questionnaire, addressing 3 important domains of care: management of the environment, provider characteristics, and process issues, was completed twice-once based on their current clinical experience and again based on their ideal clinical encounter. Positive scores suggest current care is less than ideal; negative scores suggest current care exceeds the ideal experience. RESULTS: Most patients (n = 65, 68% female) had a diagnosis of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (87%). Patients identified mean gap scores between 0.2 and 0.3 for each domain of Mind the Gap, with female patients having higher gap scores compared with male patients. Parents (n = 51) identified gap scores between 0.0 and 0.3. Patients identified process issues as having the largest gap, whereas parents identified management of the environment as having the largest gap. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several gaps in transition clinic care relative to what patients and parents identify as ideal. These can be used to improve the rheumatology transition care that is currently being provided.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.007 |
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".