Training and Practice Gaps in Pediatric Apheresis in Canada: A National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the pediatric apheresis landscape in Canada by assessing provider comfort, training adequacy, and prescriber roles for therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) and automated red blood cell exchange (RBCX). A national survey was completed by 52 pediatric subspecialists (27 nephrologists, 25 hematologists/oncologists) from 12 institutions. Most respondents (63%) reported that both TPE and RBCX were available at their site. Prescribing responsibilities varied by therapy and indication. Across seven clinical domains, comfort scores were moderate for both therapies, with training adequacy scores consistently lower. Training adequacy for TPE was significantly higher than that for RBCX in two domains: identifying (2.48 ± 1.03 vs. 2.10 ± 1.13, p = 0.043) and managing (2.44 ± 1.05 vs. 2.06 ± 1.14, p = 0.035) common complications. Free-text responses emphasized informal training and the need for national education strategies. These findings highlight gaps in pediatric apheresis education and the need for standardized, competency-based training across subspecialties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".