Emergency Department Revisits in Children With Gastroenteritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine whether intravenous fluid administration is independently associated with a reduction in unscheduled emergency department (ED) revisits within 7 days. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective observational cohort study in a pediatric ED in Toronto, Canada. Participants were younger than 18 years, diagnosed as having gastroenteritis, and discharged home between July 2003 and June 2008. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the associations between the exposures (intravenous rehydration, triage severity score, age) and ED revisits and revisits with intravenous rehydration. Accuracy was assessed using bootstrap analysis. RESULTS: There were 22,125 potentially eligible visits; 3346 were included in our final cohort. A total of 497 children (15%) received intravenous rehydration and 543 (16%) had an unscheduled revisit. Regression analysis included 2874 children with complete data, and identified 5 independent predictors of an ED revisit: intravenous rehydration (odds ratio [OR] 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-2.26); number of vomiting episodes (1.20; 95% CI 1.04-1.28/5 episode increase); days of diarrhea (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.88-0.97/day increase); frequency of diarrhea (1.19; 95% CI 1.03-1.38/5 episode increase); and age (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.91-0.98/year). Bootstrap methodology identified intravenous rehydration, age, number of vomiting episodes, days of diarrhea, and number of diarrheal stools a minimum of 500 of 1000 iterations. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous rehydration is associated with unscheduled ED revisits after adjustment for clinical findings. Although children experiencing revisits were likely more unwell, our data do not support the provision of intravenous fluids to prevent unscheduled ED revisits in children with mild-to-moderate dehydration.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".