Care and outcomes of Canadian children hospitalised with periorbital and orbital cellulitis: protocol for a multicentre, retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Skin and soft tissue infections of the eye can be classified based on anatomic location as either anterior to the orbital septum (ie, periorbital cellulitis) or posterior to the orbital septum (ie, orbital cellulitis). These two conditions are often considered together in hospitalised children as clinical differentiation is difficult, especially in young children. Prior studies have identified variation in management of hospitalised children with orbital cellulitis; however, they have been limited either as single centre studies or by the use of administrative data which lacks clinical details important for interpreting variation in care. We aim to describe the care and outcomes of Canadian children hospitalised with periorbital and orbital cellulitis. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This is a multisite retrospective cohort study including previously healthy children aged 2 months to 18 years admitted to hospital with periorbital or orbital cellulitis from 2009 to 2018. Clinical data from medical records from multiple Canadian hospitals will be collected, including community and academic centres. Demographic characteristics and study outcomes will be summarised using descriptive statistics, including diagnostic testing, antibiotic therapy, adjunctive therapy, surgical intervention and clinical outcomes. Variation will be described and evaluated using χ² test or Kruskal-Wallis test. Generalised linear mixed models will be used to identify predictors of surgical intervention and longer length of stay. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval of the study by the Research Ethics Board at each participating site has been obtained prior to data extraction. Study results will be disseminated by presentations at national and international meetings and by publications in high impact open access journals. By identifying important differences in management and outcomes by each hospital, the results will identify areas where care can be improved, practice standardised, unnecessary diagnostic imaging reduced, pharmacotherapy rationalised and where trials are needed.
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 | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".