Systematic Review of Invasive <i>Acinetobacter</i> Infections in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Clinicians are generally familiar with Acinetobacter as an etiological agent for serious nosocomial infections in intensive care units. However, there are no previous reviews of the full spectrum of invasive infections in children. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was completed up to December 2008 for reports of invasive Acinetobacter infections in children. RESULTS: There were 101 studies that met the inclusion criteria including 18 possible outbreaks, 33 case series and 49 case reports. Suspected outbreaks were concentrated in neonatal intensive care units (16 of 18 outbreaks) and involved bacteremia or meningitis. Proof of isolate clonality or identification of the source of the outbreak was seldom established. Case series were primarily of children younger than five years of age presenting with bacteremia (sometimes multiresistant), meningitis, endocarditis or endophthalmitis, with many community-acquired infections being reported from India. Case reports consisted of unique presentations of disease or the use of novel therapies. Attributable mortality in the outbreaks and case series combined was 68 of 469 (14.5%). DISCUSSION: Invasive Acinetobacter infections in children usually manifest as bacteremia, meningitis or both, but can result in a wide variety of clinical presentations. Outbreaks are primarily a problem in newborns with underlying medical conditions. Most reports of community-acquired infections are from tropical countries. The study of the mechanism of colonization and infection of children in intensive care units and of neonates in tropical countries may provide some insight into prevention of invasive infections.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".