Underdosing of Acetaminophen by Parents and Emergency Department Utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Fever is a common reason for parents to seek medical attention for their children. We conducted this study to document accuracy of parental administration of acetaminophen and to identify if parents who did not give an optimal dose would have decided not to come to the emergency department (ED) if the fever had diminished at home. METHODS: A cross-sectional study including 248 caregivers of children who had a chief complaint of fever and had been given acetaminophen in the preceding 24 hours were interviewed. RESULTS: Enrollment was 86%. One hundred parents (47%) gave acetaminophen in the recommended dose, 26 parents (12%) gave an overdose, and 87 (41%) gave an underdose of acetaminophen. Half of the parents (54%) would not have come to the ED if the fever had subsided after using the antipyretic treatment at home. Children with significantly higher maximal temperature at home would not have been taken to the ED if fever had subsided. Parents who speak English as the primary language at home gave the recommended dose of acetaminophen more frequently than non-English-speaking parents. CONCLUSION: A significant portion of our population gives an underdose of acetaminophen, reflecting lack of knowledge or misuse. Based on parental reports, the majority of visits for fever might have been prevented, if parents had been successful in their effort to reduce temperature to below of what they considered as fever, but factors other than underdosing of acetaminophen probably encourage parents of febrile children to visit the ED.
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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".