Method of Hydration for Infants Admitted With Bronchiolitis: Physician or Parental Choice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This study examines the practice patterns with respect to the technique of non-oral hydration of infants admitted with bronchiolitis at one Canadian tertiary care institution. Additionally, the authors assess the infants' parents' attitudes regarding hydration through a nasogastric (NG) tube instead of an intravenous (IV) line. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted for all infants admitted with bronchiolitis from May 1, 2016, to April 30, 2018, with a focus on the method of hydration, investigation with chest radiography, and use of IV antibiotics. Parents of infants who received IV fluids during the admission were surveyed by mail to assess their perceptions surrounding their child's experience with IV fluid therapy as well as their attitudes toward NG hydration, particularly in cases of difficult IV access. Results Of the 101 hospitalized infants, 54 received IV fluids and four received NG fluids. Of the 54 eligible for the survey, 17 completed surveys were returned. Parents were likely to consider NG hydration if suggested by their pediatrician. The proportion was extremely or very likely to consider this intervention increased from 29% in a generic situation to 53% in a scenario where there was more than one unsuccessful IV attempt (p=0.03). Conclusions In the institution studied, NG hydration was rarely used. Parents seemed receptive to the idea of NG hydration as an alternative, particularly when IV access is difficult.
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 | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".