Pediatric Anaerobic Blood Culture Practices in Industrialized Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine anaerobic blood culture collection in febrile children is controversial, as clinicians try to account for the severe but relative infrequency of anaerobic bacteremia. Furthermore, clinical and laboratory practice variation among institutions may lead to potentially inaccurate epidemiological data. Our goal was to assess blood culture practices in pediatric patients throughout an international network of hospitals in industrialized countries. METHODS: We conducted a survey of current clinical and laboratory practice patterns in a convenience sample of international institutions participating in 6 pediatric emergency research networks in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. A lead clinician at each institution queried institutional practices from the emergency department, pediatric intensive care unit, and oncology medical directors. The microbiology director at each institution completed the laboratory survey. RESULTS: Sixty-five of 160 (41%) invited institutions participated in the survey. Routine anaerobic blood cultures are collected in 30% of emergency departments, 30% of intensive care units, and 48% of oncology wards. Reasons for restricting anaerobic culture collection included concerns regarding blood volume (51%), low pretest probability (22%), and cost-effectiveness (16%). The most common reasons institutions allow for selectively obtaining anaerobic cultures are clinical suspicion (64%) and patients who are immunosuppressed (50%). The microbiology survey showed variation in systems, although most use the BACTEC™ culture system and MALDI-TOF for organism identification. CONCLUSIONS: There is broad variation in anaerobic blood culture practices among a network of pediatric hospitals in industrialized countries.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".