Association of Malodorous Urine With Urinary Tract Infection in Children Aged 1 to 36 Months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether parental reporting of malodorous urine is associated with urinary tract infection (UTI) in children. METHODS: We conducted a prospective consecutive cohort study in the emergency department of a pediatric hospital from July 31, 2009 to April 30, 2011. All children aged between 1 and 36 months for whom a urine culture was prescribed for suspected UTI (ie, unexplained fever, irritability, or vomiting) were assessed for eligibility. A standardized questionnaire was administered to the parents by a research assistant. The primary outcome measure was a UTI. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-six children were initially enrolled, but 65 were excluded a posteriori either because a urine culture, although prescribed, was not done (11), was collected by bag (39), and/or showed gross contamination (25). Therefore, 331 children were included in the final analysis. Their median age was 12 months (range, 1-36). Criteria for UTI were fulfilled in 51 (15%). A malodorous urine was reported by parents in 57% of children with UTI and in 32% of children without UTI. On logistic regression, malodorous urine was associated with UTI (odds ratio 2.83, 95% confidence interval: 1.54-5.20). This association remained statistically significant when adjusted for gender and the presence of vesicoureteral reflux (odds ratio 2.73, 95% confidence interval: 1.46-5.08). CONCLUSIONS: Parental reporting of malodorous urine increases the probability of UTI among young children being evaluated for suspected UTI. However, this association is not strong enough to definitely rule in or out a diagnosis of UTI.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".