Time of Observation in Xenobiotic Ingestions in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Children endure a prolonged observation after xenobiotic ingestions, despite low associated morbidity and mortality. The primary objective was to describe the management and outcomes of acute xenobiotic exposures in asymptomatic pediatric patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). A secondary objective was to explore the impact of vital signs on the patients' management and outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of asymptomatic children (younger than 18 years) presenting to a pediatric ED after a toxic ingestion from 2014 to 2018. Ingestions of hydrocarbons, acetaminophen, salicylates, sulfonylureas, caustic, and/or extended release agents were excluded. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. RESULTS: Of 2817 charts, we identified 109 asymptomatic patients with a mean age of 4.7 years. The average observation from registration to disposition was 4.06 hours. Five patients were admitted and were subsequently discharged within 24 hours. Of the discharged patients, 2 returned within 72 hours and were subsequently discharged home. A total of 321 asymptomatic patients presented with ≥1 abnormal vital signs (mean age, 6.6 years) and were observed in the ED for an average of 4.54 hours. They had a higher percentage of ingestions related to suicide attempts (odds ratio, 6.8). Twenty-two were admitted. Of those discharged home, 11 returned to the ED within 72 hours; all were subsequently discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged observations may not be necessary after ingestions in asymptomatic children. Vital sign abnormalities at presentation did not impact disposition. Prospective studies are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of this shortened observation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".