Pediatric Ingestions of House hold Products Containing Ethanol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol is present in a number of household items that are readily accessible to children. Ingestion of these household products containing alcohol can lead to significant health risks. OBJECTIVE: To identify reported cases of ingestions of common household items that have led to ethanol intoxication, poisoning, or death in children up to the age of 18 years. METHODS: The OVID MEDLINE database from 1948 to March 2011, Embase from 1980 to March 2011, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) from 1982 to February 2011 were searched for articles with the following key terms: alcohols(ethanol or ethyl alcohol) and ingest*(ingestion) or intoxic*(intoxication) or poisoning* or death. The search was limited to children (0-18 years). All articles that reported ingestion of household products that contained ethanol were included in the analysis. Results. Many household products, particularly mouthwashes, hand sanitizers, and cosmetics contain quantities of ethanol that are significant enough to induce intoxication and hypoglycemia. There were 17 publications directly reporting on children with alcohol intoxication from household products. Serious adverse events included hypoglycemia, seizures, and death. Child-resistant closures appear to have reduced the incidence of ingestion of ethanol-based products, including mouthwashes, and may be applicable to other products such as hand sanitizers. CONCLUSION: Ingestion of household substances containing alcohol continues to be a health care problem. Legislature to reduce alcohol content in household products and public education should be instituted to prevent poisonings in children.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".