Emergency department and inpatient clinical decision tools for the management of febrile young infants among tertiary paediatric centres across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: With no nationally-endorsed guidelines and the emergence of newer diagnostic tools, there exists significant variation in the management of febrile infants <90 days. We sought to evaluate the prevalence and content of clinical decision tools (CDTs) for the emergency department (ED) and inpatient management of febrile young infants across Canada. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional analysis of febrile young infant CDTs from ED and inpatient units at all 16 Canadian tertiary paediatric hospitals. Additional data were collected using an electronic survey of ED and inpatient representatives, characterizing their clinical settings and diagnostic test availability. Content of all existent CDTs was independently reviewed using list items determined a priori. The primary outcome was the proportion of EDs and inpatient units with CDTs. RESULTS: Information regarding CDTs was gathered from all 16 EDs and 16 inpatient units. CDTs were infrequently available (9/32, 28%), and were more common in the ED than inpatient setting (8/16 versus 1/16, P=0.02). Review of existing CDTs revealed inter-centre differences for inclusion ages, treatment regimens, lumbar puncture recommendations, diagnostic testing and normal laboratory values. Despite availability reported at nearly all centres, C-reactive protein and respiratory virus testing were recommended in 3/9 and 5/9 CDTs, respectively. Procalcitonin testing was available at only 2/16 (13%) centres, and not incorporated into any CDTs. CONCLUSIONS: CDTs for the management of febrile young infants are infrequently available among Canadian tertiary paediatric centres, and rarely incorporate newer diagnostic tests. Heterogeneity among existent CDTs highlights the need for evidence-based unified ED and inpatient national guidelines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".