MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4397000691 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s1447d

Assessing Nephrology Competency in General Pediatrics

2020· article· en· W4397000691 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amrit Kirpalani, Natasha Jawa, Charushree Prasad, Adelle Atkinson, Mark Feldman, Justin Jeffers, Damien Noone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNephrologyMedicineInternal medicinePediatricsIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: General pediatricians may be the first-line providers to care for children with kidney disease, however studies suggest they find nephrology to be a difficult subject. This study aimed to identify areas of lowest perceived competency and importance within nephrology for general pediatricians. Methods: A web-based survey was distributed to general pediatricians through the Paediatricians of Ontario network, to all Pediatrics Residency Program Directors in Canada and to Pediatric Nephrologists in the Canadian Association of Paediatric Nephrologists. Pediatricians were asked to rate nephrology objectives of training on a 5-point Likert scale for perceived competence and importance. Program Directors and Nephrologists were asked for perceived importance of each objective for general pediatricians. Scores were analyzed using Student’s t-test and mean scores were calculated. Knowledge Gap scores were calculated as the difference between perceived importance and competence scores. Results: General Paediatricians. 60/350 (17%) responded to the survey. Domains scoring significantly below the mean in terms of competency (2.9/5) and importance (3.2/5), respectively, were kidney stones (2.5 and 2.6), AKI (2.5 and 2.4), CKD (1.9 and 2.1), Tubular disorders (1.8 and 2.0), and kidney transplant (1.6 and 1.7). Hypertension had the most significant knowledge gap score (0.8/5, 16%, p<0.05). Program Directors. 9/17 (53%) responded to the survey. Nephrologists. 20/80 (25%) responded to the survey Program Directors and Nephrologists agreed that Stones, CKD, Tubular disorders, and Transplant were of lower importance. AKI was the domain with the largest discrepancy in perceived importance rated between nephrologists (4.2) and Program Directors (4.2) compared to general pediatricians (2.4) (1.8/5, 36%, p<0.05). Conclusions: General pediatricians do not feel comfortable with AKI and do not find this topic important to their practice, contrary to Program Directors’ and Nephrologists’ opinions, and despite growing evidence in recent years of the under-recognition, poor follow-up, and significant long-term implications of AKI. Hypertension is the area with the largest knowledge gap, which also raises concerns due to its rising prevalence in pediatrics. Educational interventions are needed to address deficits in these crucial domains of renal health in general pediatrics.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→