This article has been peer reviewed. Can Fam Physician 2013;59:e379-86 Web exclusive | Research Management of neonatal jaundice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To survey current practices among different types of medical practitioners in Ontario to assess if national guidelines for screening and management of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia were being followed. Design An anonymized, cross-sectional survey distributed by mail and e-mail. Setting Ontario. Participants From each group (general practitioners, family medicine practitioners, and pediatricians), 500 participants were randomly selected, and all 390 registered midwives were selected. Main outcome measures Compliance with national guidelines for screening, postdischarge follow-up, and management of newborns with hyperbilirubinemia. Results Of the 1890 potential respondents, 321 (17%) completed the survey. Only 41 % of family physicians reported using national guidelines, compared with 75 % and 69 % of pediatricians and midwives, respectively (P <.001). Bilirubin was routinely measured for all newborns before discharge by 42 % of family physicians, 63 % of pediatricians, and 22 % of
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".