Comparison of Febrile Infants With Enterococcal and Gram-negative Urinary Tract Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the presentations and clinical courses of infants with enterococcal urinary tract infections (UTI). The objective of this study was to compare the clinical presentation, sensitivity of urinalysis (UA) and Gram's stain, radiological abnormalities and adverse events of febrile infants with enterococcal UTIs to those with Gram-negative UTIs. METHODS: Retrospective study of febrile (≥38.0°C) infants 29-60 days of age with UTIs at 20 emergency departments. UTI was defined as growth of (1) ≥50,000 colony forming units (CFUs)/mL of a single pathogen; or (2) either 10,000 to <50,000 CFUs/mL or 10,000-100,000 CFUs/mL (depending on laboratory reporting) with a positive UA or Gram's stain. RESULTS: Thirty-seven (2.0%) of 1870 infants with febrile UTIs had enterococcal UTIs. On bivariable analysis, infants with enterococcal UTIs more frequently had histories of prematurity, previous hospitalizations, histories of genitourinary abnormalities, previous UTIs and ill-appearance in the emergency department compared with infants with Gram-negative UTIs (all P <0.05). On multivariable analysis, ≥ grade 3 vesicoureteral reflux (adjusted odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.4, 7.6) and hydronephrosis (adjusted odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval: 1.4, 7.9) were associated with enterococcal UTIs. Both groups had similar low risks of adverse events or severe clinical courses. The urine white blood cell count alone or in combination with leukocyte esterase was more sensitive for Gram-negative than enterococcal UTIs (range 80.4%-93.9% vs. 50.0%-75.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Febrile infants with enterococcal UTIs had a low likelihood of adverse events or severe clinical course, similar to those with Gram-negative UTIs. Infants with enterococcal UTIs frequently had underlying hydronephrosis and/or vesicoureteral reflux. The preliminary diagnosis of enterococcal UTIs may be inaccurate if based on UA.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".