Performance of the Modified Boston and Philadelphia Criteria for Invasive Bacterial Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability of the decades-old Boston and Philadelphia criteria to accurately identify infants at low risk for serious bacterial infections has not been recently reevaluated. METHODS: We assembled a multicenter cohort of infants 29 to 60 days of age who had cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood cultures obtained. We report the performance of the modified Boston criteria (peripheral white blood cell count [WBC] ≥20 000 cells per mm3, CSF WBC ≥10 cells per mm3, and urinalysis with >10 WBC per high-power field or positive urine dip result) and modified Philadelphia criteria (peripheral WBC ≥15 000 cells per mm3, CSF WBC ≥8 cells per mm3, positive CSF Gram-stain result, and urinalysis with >10 WBC per high-power field or positive urine dip result) for the identification of invasive bacterial infections (IBIs). We defined IBI as bacterial meningitis (growth of pathogenic bacteria from CSF culture) or bacteremia (growth from blood culture). RESULTS: We applied the modified Boston criteria to 8344 infants and the modified Philadelphia criteria to 8131 infants. The modified Boston criteria identified 133 of the 212 infants with IBI (sensitivity 62.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 55.9% to 69.3%] and specificity 59.2% [95% CI 58.1% to 60.2%]), and the modified Philadelphia criteria identified 157 of the 219 infants with IBI (sensitivity 71.7% [95% CI 65.2% to 77.6%] and specificity 46.1% [95% CI 45.0% to 47.2%]). The modified Boston and Philadelphia criteria misclassified 17 of 53 (32.1%) and 13 of 56 (23.3%) infants with bacterial meningitis, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The modified Boston and Philadelphia criteria misclassified a substantial number of infants 29 to 60 days old with IBI, including those with bacterial meningitis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".