MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761043049 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1841

Incidence and Outcomes of Endophthalmitis Associated Hospitalizations in Children Aged ≤ 20 Years: A Population-Based Cohort Study

2017· article· en· W2761043049 on OpenAlexaff
Brett Edwards, Vikram Lekhi, Michael D. Parkins, Ranjani Somayaji

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndophthalmitisIncidence (geometry)PediatricsEpidemiologyPopulationCohortRetrospective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endophthalmitis is a rare but sight-threatening condition in children, and is most commonly attributable to surgery, endogenous spread of infection, and trauma. Few population-based studies have examined the epidemiology and outcomes of neonatal and pediatric endophthalmitis. Using the 2012 Kids’ Inpatient Database, a stratified random sample of pediatric (≤ 20 years) discharges from community and non-rehabilitation hospitals in the US, we conducted a cohort study to examine the incidence and outcomes of endophthalmitis. The ICD9-CM search codes included 360.0*, 360.13 and 360.19 for endophthalmitis. Our primary outcome was the incidence of endophthalmitis hospitalizations in children. Demographics of sex, age, and race were described. Outcomes of death, length of stay (LOS in days), and total costs were described and compared (with weighting) between neonatal (< 4 weeks) and pediatric cases. A total of 344 hospitalizations (58.1% male, median age 0 years (IQR 0–10 years) occurred for endophthalmitis corresponding to a national total of 478 cases at an incidence rate of 7.2 cases per 100,000 persons. Of these, 50.3% were neonatal endophthalmitis cases. Endophthalmitis was most common in the Caucasian (51.1%), Hispanic (21.9%) and Black (16.6%) races. The overall mortality was not significantly different between pediatric and neonatal cases (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.24 – 8.90). For LOS, neonatal patients with endophthalmitis had a significantly greater LOS by 14.30 days (95% CI 7.97–19.52, P <0.001) compared with pediatric patients. Neonatal cases also had a significantly greater associated cost compared with pediatric cases (difference $77,626, 95% CI $16,703–$138,500, P = 0.01). Our population-based study demonstrated that neonatal endophthalmitis was associated with similar incidence rates and mortality, but greater LOS and health care costs compared with pediatric endophthalmitis. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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)0.001
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicOcular Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207