MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891733330 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v44i09a02

Should equivocal Bordetella pertussis PCR results in children be reported to public health?

2018· article· en· W2891733330 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michaël Desjardins, Sarah Mousseau, Paméla Doyon-Plourde, Nicholas Brousseau, D Iachimov, Fabien Rallu, Caroline Quach

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioBordetella pertussisConfidence intervalLogistic regressionInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyMedical recordWhooping coughUnivariate analysisPediatricsMultivariate analysisImmunologyVaccination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the preferred method for the diagnosis of pertussis.In Quebec, positive and equivocal results are reportable to public health; in contrast, in Ontario equivocal results are not reportable.Objective: To determine the clinical significance of equivocal, compared with positive results, in children with suspected pertussis.Methods: Retrospective cohort of consecutive patients seen at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine in Montréal, Quebec, with suspected pertussis and tested with a bacterial multiplex PCR (including Bordetella pertussis) between 2015 and 2017.Medical records were reviewed using a standardized form.Univariate analyses (Student's t-test and chi-square test) and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare cases of positive and equivocal results.Results: Of the 1,526 multiplex PCR performed, 109 were positive and 24 equivocal.Both groups were similar in terms of demographics and disease severity assessments, but patients in the equivocal group had less paroxysmal cough (33.3% vs 79.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.29)and whoop (0% vs 18.3%, p<0.001), lower lymphocyte counts (6.6 vs 11.9 x10 9 /L, p=0.008), were more likely to be diagnosed with a viral co-infection (16.7% vs 3.7%, aOR 5.62, 95% CI 1.17-27.54)and were less likely to receive a macrolide (25% vs 89%, aOR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.11).When admitted, patients with equivocal results had a shorter average length of stay (3.3 vs 12.2 days, p=0.001).Conclusion: Although there were similarities in disease severity, children with suspected pertussis who had equivocal PCR results had significantly different clinical presentations compared with those with positive results.In the context of limited public health resources, these results may inform the decision whether or not equivocal results need to be reported to public health by laboratories.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207