Presentations of Infants to Emergency Departments in Alberta, Canada, for Bronchiolitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract disease among infants and results in 35 admissions per 1000 infants in Canada. We describe the epidemiology of bronchiolitis presentations to emergency departments (EDs) made by infants (aged ≤2 years) in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: Provincial administrative databases were used to obtain all ED encounters for bronchiolitis during April 1999 to March 2005. Information included demographics, ED visit timing, and subsequent visits to non-ED settings. Data analysis included summaries and standardized rates. RESULTS: There were 26,742 ED visits for bronchiolitis made by 18,155 infants. Most (74.9%) had only 1 bronchiolitis-related ED visit; males (60.6% of ED visits, 59.8% of infants) more commonly presented than females. The standardized rates increased from 23.2 to 46.7 per 1000 in 1999/2000 to 2000/2001 and decreased gradually to 38.8 per 1000 in 2004/2005. Of the total visits, 22.6% required hospitalization. In a discharged subset, 10.4% had a repeat ED visit within 7 days. Most infants (63.3%) had yet to have a non-ED follow-up visit by 1 week; median time to the first follow-up was 18 days. CONCLUSIONS: Bronchiolitis is a common presenting problem in Alberta EDs, and further study of these trends is required to understand variation in presentations. The important findings include different trends in rates for the first 3 years before a gradual decrease, disparities based on age, sex, and socioeconomic/cultural status, and the low rate of early follow-up. Targeted interventions could be implemented to reduce bronchiolitis-related hospitalizations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".