Oxygen Saturation Targets in Infants Hospitalized With Bronchiolitis: A Multicenter Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine 2 hospital oxygen saturation target policies and clinical outcomes in infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis. METHODS: This multicenter cohort study used data collected from a randomized clinical trial of infants aged 4 weeks to 24 months, hospitalized with bronchiolitis at children's and community hospitals from 2016 to 2019. We modeled the association between hospital oxygen saturation target policy, either 90% while awake and 88% while asleep (90%/88%) or 90% while awake and asleep (90%/90%), and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 162 infants were enrolled at 4 hospitals using a 90%/88% oxygen saturation target and 67 infants at 2 hospitals using a 90%/90% target policy. No significant differences between the 90%/88% group and 90%/90% groups were observed for time to discharge (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.14; P = .25), initiation of supplemental oxygen (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.47-2.02; P = .95), time to discontinuation of supplemental oxygen (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.44-1.27; P = .28), revisits (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.52-3.71; P = .52), and parent days missed from work (aOR, 2.41; 95% CI, 0.90-6.41; P = .08). Three infants in the 90%/88% group and none in the 90%/90% group were transferred to the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: Among infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis, clinical outcomes were similar between a hospital oxygen saturation target policy of 90% while awake and 88% while asleep compared with 90% while awake and asleep. These findings may inform the design of future trials of oxygen saturation targets in bronchiolitis hospital care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".