MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do published guidelines predict pneumonia in children presenting to an urban ED?

2001· article· en· W2333927792 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Emergency Care · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTachypneaPneumoniaCracklesEmergency departmentConfidence intervalRespiratory distressObservational studyPediatricsChest radiographPredictive value of testsEmergency medicineRadiographyIntensive care medicinePhysical examinationInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: In 1997, a Canadian task force published evidence-based guidelines for diagnosing pediatric pneumonia, concluding that the absence of each of four signs (ie, respiratory distress, tachypnea, crackles, and decreased breath sounds) accurately excludes pneumonia. The study was performed to evaluate the accuracy of these guidelines in predicting pneumonia in young children. METHODS: This was an observational study conducted over a 4-month period at an urban emergency department with 80,000 annual visits, approximately 20% of which were children < or =5 years old. Consecutive children < or =5 years old who underwent chest radiography were enrolled. Prior to ordering radiographs, treating physicians were required to enter specific patient signs and symptoms into a computerized database. World Health Organization criteria were used to define tachypnea. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the task force guidelines in predicting pneumonia were calculated. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-nine children, including 67 (20%) with pneumonia, were enrolled. Guidelines were 45% sensitive (95% confidence interval (CI) = 33-58) and 66% specific (95% CI = 60-72) for diagnosing pneumonia. Positive and negative predictive values were 25% (95% CI = 18-34) and 82% (95% CI = 77-87), respectively. CONCLUSION: Previously published evidence-based guidelines for excluding pediatric pneumonia were found unreliable in this study.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.301 · 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