Comparing Pediatric Gastroenteritis Emergency Department Care in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Between-country variation in health care resource use and its impact on outcomes in acute care settings have been challenging to disentangle from illness severity by using administrative data. METHODS: We conducted a preplanned analysis employing patient-level emergency department (ED) data from children enrolled in 2 previously conducted clinical trials. Participants aged 3 to <48 months with <72 hours of gastroenteritis were recruited in pediatric EDs in the United States (N = 10 sites; 588 participants) and Canada (N = 6 sites; 827 participants). The primary outcome was an unscheduled health care provider visit within 7 days; the secondary outcomes were intravenous fluid administration and hospitalization at or within 7 days of the index visit. RESULTS: In adjusted analysis, unscheduled revisits within 7 days did not differ (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50 to 1.02). At the index ED visit, although participants in Canada were assessed as being more dehydrated, intravenous fluids were administered more frequently in the United States (aOR: 4.6; 95% CI: 2.9 to 7.1). Intravenous fluid administration rates did not differ after enrollment (aOR: 1.4; 95% CI: 0.7 to 2.8; US cohort with Canadian as referent). Overall, intravenous rehydration was higher in the United States (aOR: 3.8; 95% CI: 2.5 to 5.7). Although hospitalization rates during the 7 days after enrollment (aOR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.4 to 2.6) did not differ, hospitalization at the index visit was more common in the United States (3.9% vs 2.3%; aOR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.6 to 6.8). CONCLUSIONS: Among children with gastroenteritis and similar disease severity, revisit rates were similar in our 2 study cohorts, despite lower rates of intravenous rehydration and hospitalization in Canadian-based EDs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".