National Survey on the Impact of Viral Testing for the ED and Inpatient Management of Febrile Young Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Well-appearing febrile infants with viral illnesses cannot be distinguished from those with occult life-threatening infections. Infants with respiratory viruses are less likely to have serious bacterial infections; however, current risk-stratification criteria predate widespread viral testing and there are limited data to safely inform physician management with this now common diagnostic tool. This study sought to explore the possible impact of respiratory virus testing on clinical decision-making for the management of febrile young infants<6 weeks old. METHODS: A scenario-based survey was sent to emergency department (ED) and inpatient physicians at all 16 Canadian tertiary pediatric centers. Participants were asked questions regarding management decisions with and without results of respiratory virus testing. RESULTS: Response rate was 78% (n=330; 190 ED, 140 inpatient). Detection of a respiratory virus reduced admission rates among 3-week-old (83% vs 95%, P<.001) and 5-week-old infants (36% vs 52%, P<.001). Similarly, empirical antibiotic treatment was decreased by detection of a respiratory virus for 3-week-old (65% vs 92%, P<.001) and 5-week-old infants (25% vs 39%, P<.001). Management of 5-week-old infants differed between ED and inpatient physicians, both in the presence and absence of a respiratory virus. There was no consensus among inpatient physicians regarding admission duration for well infants with a detectable respiratory virus and otherwise negative workup. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory virus testing appears to influence clinical decision-making for febrile infants<6 weeks, reducing both rates of admission and antimicrobial treatment. Important work is needed to better understand how to safely incorporate viral testing for the management of this vulnerable patient population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".