Evaluating the introduction of Humidified High-Flow nasal cannula therapy into an Australian Aeromedical Service within a paediatric population: A retrospective cohort study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Title: Evaluating the introduction of Humidified High-Flow nasal cannula therapy into an Australian Aeromedical Service within a paediatric population: A retrospective cohort study. Aim: To compare the outcomes of paediatric patients who were initiated on Humidified High Flow (HHF) oxygen in a peripheral centre prior to air transfer to a tertiary paediatric centre, based on whether HHF was continued during the flight. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study assessing outcomes of those rural Western Australian patients initiated on HHF at a retrieving hospital and subsequently did or did not receive HHF in flight to the destination hospital between the four-year period. Results: A total of 61 cases were collected, 29 did not receive HHF in flight, 32 continued HHF in flight to the destination hospital. All recorded cases were flight transfers and ranged between 0.65 hours and 4.9 hours. The median age of participants is 8 months (IQR 4,18). The main pathology included bronchiolitis (55%) and pneumonia (33%). Those patients who had a higher respiratory rate (p = 0.021) or had severe work of breathing, the more likely they were to receive HHF in flight (p = 0.012). If a participant had HHF in flight, they were more likely to continue it in the destination hospital (p = <0.001). Between our two groups, there was no observed statistically significant difference of hospital length of stay (p = 0.8). Conclusion: Our study adds to a growing body of literature that the use of HHF during aeromedical transfer is safe and did not lead to increased hospital length of stay in our study population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".