Point-of-care testing for procalcitonin in identifying bacterial infections in young infants: a diagnostic accuracy study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to report on the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care testing (POCT) for procalcitonin (PCT) in identifying invasive bacterial infections in young infants. Invasive bacterial infection was defined as the isolation of a bacterial pathogen in blood or cerebrospinal fluid culture. METHODS: This was a prospective observational diagnostic accuracy study. Young infants less than 90 days of age presenting to the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children with signs of possible bacterial infection were eligible for inclusion. Eligible infants underwent point-of-care testing for procalcitonin in the emergency department. Testing was performed by clinical staff using 0.5 ml of whole blood. Results were available within 20 min. RESULTS: 126 children were included over a 5-month period between September 2017 and January 2018. There were 14 children diagnosed with bacterial infections (11.1%). Of these 4 children were diagnosed with invasive bacterial infections (3.2%). POCT procalcitonin demonstrated an excellent diagnostic accuracy for identifying children with invasive bacterial infection area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97(95% CI, 0.94 to 1.0). At a cut-off value of 1.0 ng/ml is highly accurate at identifying infants at risk of invasive bacterial infection with a sensitivity and specificity of 1.00 and 0.92 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care procalcitonin can be performed quickly in the emergency department and demonstrates an excellent diagnostic accuracy for the identification of young infants with invasive bacterial infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03509727 Retrospectively registered on 26th April 2018.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".