MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Value of amino‐terminal pro B‐natriuretic peptide in diagnosing Kawasaki disease

2012· article· en· W1554650404 on OpenAlexaff
Ariane McNeal‐Davidson, Anne Fournier, Linda Spigelblatt, Claire Saint‐Cyr, Thomas S. Mir, Amiram Nir, Frédéric Dallaire, J.M. Cousineau, Edgard Delvin, Nagib Dahdah

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatrics International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKawasaki Disease and Coronary Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNatriuretic peptideKawasaki diseaseConfidence intervalReceiver operating characteristicInternal medicineOdds ratioGastroenterologyArea under the curveProspective cohort studyPredictive valueCardiologyPredictive value of testsLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingHeart failureArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the diagnostic value of the N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in acute Kawasaki disease (KD) given that the clinical criteria and the current basic laboratory tests lack the necessary specificity for accurate diagnosis. METHODS: Basic biological tests and serum NT-proBNP levels obtained from acute KD patients were compared to that of febrile controls. NT-proBNP was considered abnormal based on the following definitions: above a cut-off determined on receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis, above the upper limit for age, or above 2 SD calculated from healthy children. Analyses were also performed for KD cases with complete or incomplete criteria combined and separately. RESULTS: There were 81 patients and 49 controls aged 3.60 ± 2.77 versus 4.25 ± 3.88 years (P= 0.69). ROC analysis yielded significant area under the curve for NT-proBNP. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 70.4-88.9%, 69.4-91.8%, 82.8-93.4%, and 65.2-79.1%. The odds ratios based on NT-proBNP definitions varied between 18.13 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.21-45.57), 20.82 (95%CI: 8.18-53.0), and 26.71 (95%CI: 8.64-82.57; P < 0.001). Results were reproducible for cases with complete or incomplete criteria separately. CONCLUSION: NT-proBNP is a reliable marker for the diagnosis of KD. Prospective clinical studies with emphasis on NT-proBNP in a diagnostic algorithm are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatrics InternationalSame topicKawasaki Disease and Coronary ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207