Predictors of major intervention in infants with bronchiolitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify predictors of the major medical intervention (MMI) in infants with bronchiolitis in the Emergency Department (ED) to recognize those in need of hospitalization versus the candidates for discharge. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted an analysis of data from a prospective cohort study of previously healthy infants 2-23 months presenting to our ED with first episode of wheeze and respiratory distress. Infants were divided into those with at least one MMI defined as oxygen administration for saturation of <90%, intravenous (IV) fluids of 20 ml/kg, apnea management, or critical care unit (CCU) admission (MMI group) versus those without (no-MMI group). The primary outcome was the association between the MMI versus no-MMI groups and potential risk factors for these outcomes. RESULTS: Of 312 study infants, 52 experienced MMI--all received oxygen for saturation <90%, four also received IV fluids and none required apnea management or CCU care. The following four risk factors were associated with MMI: baseline accessory muscle score >or=6/9 [OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.29; 4.62], oxygen saturation <or=92% [OR 2.41, 95% CI 0.96; 6.14], respiratory rate >or=60 [OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.97; 3.54], and poor fluid intake [OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.12; 6.26]. Of the 148 infants without predictors 11 (7.4%) received MMI, 145 required either no MMI or oxygen for <or=6 hr and 130 (87.8%) stayed for <or=12 hr. CONCLUSIONS: Infants with bronchiolitis with high-risk predictors should be hospitalized whereas those without can be considered for outpatient management due to low-risk of MMI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".