Thiamine prescribing practices within university‐affiliated hospitals: A multicenter retrospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with suspected thiamine deficiency should receive treatment with parenteral thiamine to achieve the high serum thiamine levels necessary to reverse the effects of deficiency and to circumvent problems with absorption common in the medically ill. OBJECTIVE: To quantify rates of parenteral administration of thiamine across university-affiliated hospitals and to identify factors associated with higher rates of parenteral prescribing. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective observational study of thiamine prescriptions. METHODS: Prescriptions for thiamine were captured from computerized pharmacy information systems across participating centers, providing information concerning dose, route, frequency, and duration of thiamine prescribed from January 2010 to December 2011. SETTING: Fourteen university-affiliated tertiary care hospitals geographically distributed across Canada, including 48,806 prescriptions for thiamine provided to 32,213 hospitalized patients. RESULTS: Parenteral thiamine accounted for a statistically significant majority of thiamine prescriptions (57.6%, P < 0.001); however, oral thiamine constituted a significant majority of the total doses prescribed (68.4%, z = 168.9; P < 0.001). Protocols prioritizing parenteral administration were associated with higher rates of parenteral prescribing (61.3% with protocol, 45.8% without protocol; P < 0.001). Patients admitted under psychiatry services were significantly more likely to be prescribed oral thiamine (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although parenteral thiamine accounted for a statistically significant majority of prescriptions, oral thiamine was commonly prescribed within academic hospitals. Additional strategies are needed to promote parenteral thiamine prescribing to patients with suspected thiamine deficiency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".