A Cost Analysis of Pulse Oximetry as a Determinant in the Decision to Admit Infants With Mild to Moderate Bronchiolitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A previous randomized controlled trial showed that artificially elevating the pulse oximetry display resulted in fewer hospitalizations with no worse outcomes. This suggests that management decisions based mainly on pulse oximetry may unnecessarily increase health care costs. This study assessed the incremental cost of altered relative to true oximetry in infants with mild to moderate bronchiolitis. METHODS: A cost analysis was undertaken from the health care system and societal perspectives using patient-level data from the randomized controlled trial, with a 5-day time horizon after emergency department visit. Infants aged 4 weeks to 12 months with mild to moderate bronchiolitis were randomized to pulse oximetry measurements with true or altered saturation values displayed by artificially increasing saturation 3% points above true values. Direct and indirect health care costs were measured. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: From the health care system perspective, the average cost per patient was Can $1155 for altered oximetry and $1967 for true oximetry, with a net savings of $812. From a societal perspective, the average cost per patient was $1559 for altered oximetry and $2473 for true oximetry, with a net savings of $914. Probabilistic analyses demonstrated that altered oximetry remained the less costly study group, with an average savings of $810 (95% confidence interval, $748-$872) from the health care system perspective and $910 (95% confidence interval, $848-$973) from the societal system perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Reliance on oximetry as a major determinant in the decision to hospitalize infants with mild to moderate bronchiolitis is associated with significantly greater costs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".