MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782094317 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190649

A retrospective review of vital signs and clinical outcomes of febrile infants younger than 3 months old presenting to the emergency department

2018· review· en· W2782094317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shu‐Ling Chong, Wendy Yi Wen Chin, Justin-James Chua, Praseetha Nair, Alicia Shu Zhen Ong, Kee Chong Ng, Ian Maconochie

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDuke-NUS Medical School
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineVital signsRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Febrile infants younger than 3 months old present a diagnostic dilemma to the emergency physician. We aim to describe a large population of febrile infants less than 3 months old presenting to a pediatric emergency department (ED) and to assess the performance of current heart rate guidelines in the prediction of serious infections (SI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of febrile infants younger than 3 months old, between March 2015 and Feb 2016, in a large tertiary pediatric ED. We documented the primary outcome of SI for each infant, as well as the clinical findings, vital signs, and Severity Index Score (SIS). We assessed the performance of the Paediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (PaedCTAS), Advanced Pediatric Life Support (APLS) guidelines and Fleming normal reference values, using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS: 1057 infants were analyzed, with 326 (30.6%) infants diagnosed with SI. High temperature, tachycardia, and low SIS score were significantly associated with SI. Item analysis showed that the SIS performance was driven by the presence of mottling (p = 0.003) and high temperature (p<0.001). The APLS guideline had the highest sensitivity (66.0%, 95% CI 60.5-71.1%), NPV (73.3%, 95% CI 69.7-76.5%) and AUC (0.538), while the PaedCTAS (2 standard deviation from normal) had the highest specificity (98.5%, 95% CI 97.3-99.3%) and PPV (55.2%, 95% CI 32.7-71.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Current guidelines on infantile heart rates have a variable performance. In our study, the APLS heart rate guidelines performed with the highest sensitivity, but no individual guideline predicted for SIs satisfactorily.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPediatric Urology and Nephrology StudiesFrench-language works237,207