Parenteral versus enteral fluids for infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis: The PREFER shared decision‐making prospective observational study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Incorporating shared decision-making (SDM) with children and families in hospitals was a top priority identified by patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Bronchiolitis, a common and costly reason for hospitalization in children, is an exemplar condition to study SDM in hospitals. Internationally, clinical practice guidelines differ when recommending intravenous (IV or parenteral) or nasogastric (NG or enteral) fluids for hospitalized infants with bronchiolitis who are unsafe to be fed orally. While evidence indicates that either IV or NG fluids are safe and effective, parent involvement in SDM in selecting IV or NG fluids is unknown. Our aim is to generate knowledge of SDM with parents in choosing between IV or NG fluids and the benefits and harms of these two treatment options for hospitalized children with bronchiolitis. METHOD: This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study, including children aged <12 months admitted to hospital with bronchiolitis requiring supplemental IV or NG fluids. The primary outcome will evaluate the extent of SDM in choosing IV versus NG fluids using the validated CollaboRATE tool. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of parents provided a choice of IV versus NG fluids; parent knowledge of fluid therapy; rate of fluids; length of hospital stay; and complications. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the extent of SDM in hospitalized infants with bronchiolitis who require IV or NG fluids and will evaluate both patient-centered and clinical outcomes that are relevant to clinical practice.
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 | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".