96 Foreign Body Aspiration in Children: A Review of the Public Health Prevention Guidelines by Analyzing the Circumstances of Choking Episodes in a Canadian Tertiary Centre from 2006 to 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Choking and foreign body aspiration are major causes of morbidity and mortality in infants and young children. To prevent choking episodes and their complications, many associations, from the Canadian Paediatric Society to National Public Health Institutes, have suggested prevention guidelines for parents and health professionals. They specify what types of food should be restricted in young children, such as nuts and raw hard vegetables, and give advice on surveillance. Yet, every year, children are admitted to our centre following a choking episode that requires a bronchoscopy under general anesthesia. Objectives Our objective was to identify the risks factors associated with choking episodes in children and compare them with actual prevention guidelines to determine if public health recommendations are still adequate. Design/Methods This retrospective study included all patients, from 0 to 17 years old, who presented to our tertiary centre between April 2006 and December 2020 and underwent a bronchoscopy under general anesthesia for a suspicion of foreign body aspiration. Data on demographic characteristics of the patients, the circumstances of the episodes and on severity criteria were collected from the patients’ electronic files and compared to the prevention guidelines. Results One-hundred and ninety-one patients with a history of suspected foreign body aspiration were included. Among them, 101 had a positive bronchoscopy. Close to 65% of patients were boys. The mean age at presentation was 31,5 months. Food was the most common type of foreign body, causing 73,3% of all choking episodes. Close to 70% of those choking episodes involved nuts, seeds or raw hard vegetables. 84,5% of those events happened at home, and 79,4% of choking episodes happened under the surveillance of one or both parents. Thirty patients ended in the paediatric intensive care unit where they spent an average of 6,47 days. Conclusion Our results show that most choking episodes in children result from a non-respect of actual recommendations. They involve types of food and circumstances that are already restricted by the prevention guidelines. It highlights the need for better parent education and should inspire clinicians to make some time to address choking hazards with families.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".