MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127120795

CT scan in children with acute bacterial meningitis: experience from emergency department of a tertiary-care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan.

2014· article· en· W2127120795 on OpenAlexaff
Jabeen Fayyaz, Arshalooz Rehman, Akhter Hamid, Munawar Khursheed, Nukhba Zia, Asher Feroze, Uzma Khan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentComputed tomographyMeningitisRetrospective cohort studyHydrocephalusPediatricsMedical recordBacterial meningitisEmergency medicineRadiologySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of computed tomography scan in children presenting to emergency department with symptoms and signs of suspected acute bacterial meningitis. METHODS: The retrospective analysis was done on children who were admitted through the Emergency Department at Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, from September 2009 to September 2011 with the diagnosis of acute bacterial meningitis. Information related to age, gender, presenting complaints, clinical signs and symptoms, computed tomography scan findings and final outcome of patients was gathered from the medical records. SPSS 19 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 192 patients were admitted with the relevant diagnosis. The male-female ratio was 2.3:1. Computed tomography scan was done in 114 (59.4%) patients. The scan was reported normal in 90 (78.94%) patients. However, cerebral oedema was found in 16 (14.03%) patients, cerebral infarct in 6(5.26%) and hydrocephalus in 2 (1.75%) patients. Overall, there were 6 (3.1%) deaths. CONCLUSION: Comuted tomography scan may have a beneficial role in children with acute bacterial meningitis. However, further studies are required to use the scan as a routine investigation for such a diagnosis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207