The Crying Infant: Diagnostic Testing and Frequency of Serious Underlying Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of children evaluated in an emergency department because of crying who have a serious underlying etiology. Secondary outcomes included the individual contributions of history, physical examination, and laboratory investigations in determining a diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all afebrile patients <1 year of age who presented with a chief complaint of crying, irritability, screaming, colic, or fussiness. All children with a serious underlying illness were identified by using a priori defined criteria. Chart review was conducted to determine if history, physical examination, or investigation data contributed to establishing the child's diagnosis. RESULTS: Enrollment criteria were met by 237 patients, representing 0.6% of all visits. A total of 12 (5.1%) children had serious underlying etiologies with urinary tract infections being most prevalent (n = 3). Two (16.7%) of the serious diagnoses were only made on revisit. Of the 574 tests performed, 81 (14.1%) were positive. However, only 8 (1.4%) diagnoses were assigned on the basis of a positive investigation. History and/or examination suggested an etiology in 66.3% of cases. Unwell appearance was associated with serious etiologies. In only 2 (0.8%) children did investigations in the absence of a suggestive clinical picture contribute to the diagnosis. Both of these children were <4 months of age and had urinary tract infections. Among children <1 month of age, the positive rate of urine cultures performed was 10%. Ocular fluorescein staining and rectal examination with occult blood testing were performed infrequently, and results were negative in all cases. Successful follow-up was completed with 60% of caregivers, and no missed diagnoses were found. CONCLUSIONS: History and physical examination remains the cornerstone of the evaluation of the crying infant and should drive investigation selection. Afebrile infants in the first few months of life should undergo urine evaluation. Other investigations should be performed on the basis of clinical findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".