Predictors of Outcomes in Pediatric Enteritis: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Oral rehydration therapy is underused by physicians treating children with acute infectious enteritis. To guide management, we hypothesized that clinical variables available at the initial assessment could be identified that will predict the need for intravenous fluid administration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical data were prospectively collected on a cohort of 214 children, aged 6 months to 10 years, treated in an emergency department for dehydration secondary to acute enteritis. All of the children performed supervised oral rehydration therapy for a minimum of 60 minutes according to protocol.Outcomes assessed were intravenous rehydration, return visits after discharge, and successful oral rehydration therapy. The latter variable was defined as the consumption of > or = 12.5 mL/kg per hour of oral rehydration solution. Variables individually associated with outcomes of interest were evaluated by using multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Forty-eight (22%) of 214 children received intravenous rehydration. In multivariate analysis, the 2 clinical predictors of intravenous rehydration were large urinary ketones and altered mental status. Significant predictors of repeat emergency department visits within 3 days included > or = 10 episodes of vomiting over the 24 hours before presentation and a higher heart rate at discharge from the emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: Among children with enteritis and mild-to-moderate dehydration, the presence of large urine ketones or an altered mental status is associated with intravenous rehydration after a 60-minute oral rehydration therapy period. Caution should be exercised before discharging children with either tachycardia or a history of significant vomiting before presentation, because they are more likely to require future emergency department care.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".