Practice Variations in the Treatment of Febrile Infants Among Pediatric Emergency Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to characterize variations in treatment decisions for young febrile infants in pediatric emergency departments across Canada and to document the extent of practice variations among pediatric emergency department practitioners. METHODS: This was a prospective, concurrent, cohort study of consecutive infants up to 90 days of age who presented to 6 pediatric emergency departments in Canada with fever (rectal temperature of >or=38.0 degrees C). We recorded information in the emergency department and contacted the families by telephone to confirm the final disposition. RESULTS: A total of 257 infants were recruited over 2 to 4 months. Patients were similar across centers in terms of gestational age and weight, chronologic age at arrival, weight, and gender. Temperatures measured at home and during triage and durations of fever also were similar among centers. In one center, significantly more children arrived with cough; in another center, fewer parents reported sick contacts at home. Rates of blood and urine testing were not significantly different across sites, but rates of lumbar puncture, respiratory virus testing, and chest radiography were different. A total of 55% of infants received antibiotics, and significant practice variations in the numbers and types of antibiotics used were documented. CONCLUSIONS: Practices in the evaluation of young infants with fever in tertiary pediatric emergency departments varied substantially. Blood and urine tests were ordered in the majority of centers, but rates of cerebrospinal fluid testing and antibiotic treatment differed across centers.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".