MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Defining urinary tract infection in the critically ill child

2005· article· en· W1985090592 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne M. Langley

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineUrinary systemCritically illSepsisIntensive care unitPediatricsImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To define urinary tract infections in critically ill children in the intensive care unit setting for the purpose of surveillance of infection, enrollment of children in sepsis trials, and for trials of therapy and prevention. DESIGN: Summary of the literature with review and consensus by experts in the field. RESULTS: A variety of definitions, only some of which have been validated for use in children, were identified. The Centers for Disease Control criteria for the definition of nosocomial infection have been used to establish surveillance data for inter-institutional comparison. Validated definitions for the febrile child were identified. Using the known characteristics of symptoms, signs, and laboratory criteria for urinary tract infections, definitions for definite, possible, and probable urinary tract infection were derived. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions for definite, probable, and possible urinary tract infection were achieved by consensus that can be used for surveillance and enrolment in sepsis trials. Future research should determine the utility of these definitions in the critically ill child and adapt them accordingly.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicPediatric Urology and Nephrology StudiesFrench-language works237,207