Pierre Robin Sequence: Cost-Analysis and Qualitative Assessment of 89 Patients at the Hospital for Sick Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Children with Pierre Robin sequence (PRS) have a complex clinical presentation and requires many health-care providers. Thus, multiple clinical pathways have been proposed on how to manage this population, with some opting for conservative measures while others opting for a surgical approach. However, no consensus has been reached on the most appropriate protocol. OBJECTIVE: To present the treatment protocol for PRS at the Hospital for Sick Children. This will be evaluated through a qualitative examination of the approach from the patient's perspective, and a micro-costing analysis of the financial aspects of providing care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate infants who were admitted with PRS and failure to thrive from January 2004 to December 2015. This was followed by a micro-costing analysis to evaluate the cost of the management protocol. Finally, a qualitative evaluation of the parent's perspective was done. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were admitted with failure to thrive during the study period. Fourteen patients underwent surgical management. Fourteen patients required readmission for airway or feeding issues secondary to PRS. The average cost per patient was Can$105 996. With regard to the qualitative evaluation, key themes that were generated included stress upon hospital admission, variable methods of understanding PRS, good level of communication with the team, excellent hospital process, and challenging transition home. CONCLUSION: These results will aid in the continual evolution of a protocol and provide important information on PRS to both families and centers that manage these 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 | 0.018 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".