MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6898831317 · doi:10.57945/manara.23943183

Children less likely to be treated for pain

2023· other· en· W6898831317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentPain controlHealth professionalsOpioidPain medicationPain managementAlternative medicinePain relief

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers in Canada compared the charts of 92 adults and 73 children who presented to an emergency department (ED) and were diagnosed with appendicitis1. They found that only 40% of the children — compared to 80% of the adult patients — were given pain medication during their ED stay. They were also significantly less likely than adults (27% to adults’ 71%) to receive opioid analgesics in particular, the researchers report.“Our study shows that a large number of children who appeared to have moderate to severe pain caused by appendicitis did not receive appropriate pain medication, out of proportion to their adult counterparts”, says family physician Christopher Krause, who specializes in emergency medicine. “To us, this suggests that opportunities to provide pain control to children are being missed”.Krause, a researcher at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, says the data they collected does not allow them to fully say why this discrepancy occurred or what would have been the ‘correct’ amount of pain medication to administer. “Good quantitative research regarding these barriers is not available at the moment but the study could stimulate physicians, nurses and other ED health professionals to identify and address barriers in their particular institutions”, he says.Current medical practice supports optimal pain control to promote quick and full recovery in patients. It also helps the prevention of secondary problems, explains Krause. But there seem to be numerous barriers to providing good pain control in children. These might include learned practices from senior physicians, a lack of understanding of the importance of pain control, difficulty in assessing pain in children, reluctance to insert intravenous drips into children’s veins and concerns from parents and physicians about the effects of analgesics on children.“Ultimately, we must remember that pain of some kind is the most common reason that patients present to the emergency department,” says Krause. “As emergency physicians, we must make a conscious effort to manage our patients’ pain while we are simultaneously identifying and treating its underlying cause.”The next steps, he says, would be to follow patients in the ED to obtain data on patient perceptions of their pain management and obstacles to its effective management. “This would be a difficult study to design and would be much more resource intensive, but I think the information it could provide would be invaluable,” he says.Other InformationPublished in: QScience.com Highlights, Published by Nature Research for Hamad bin Khalifa University Press (HBKU Press) License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→