Risk of bacteremia in patients presenting with shaking chills and vomiting - a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chills and vomiting have traditionally been associated with severe bacterial infections and bacteremia. However, few modern studies have in a prospective way evaluated the association of these signs with bacteremia, which is the aim of this prospective, multicenter study. Patients presenting to the emergency department with at least one affected vital sign (increased respiratory rate, increased heart rate, altered mental status, decreased blood pressure or decreased oxygen saturation) were included. A total of 479 patients were prospectively enrolled. Blood cultures were obtained from 197 patients. Of the 32 patients with a positive blood culture 11 patients (34%) had experienced shaking chills compared with 23 (14%) of the 165 patients with a negative blood culture, P = 0.009. A logistic regression was fitted to show the estimated odds ratio (OR) for a positive blood culture according to shaking chills. In a univariate model shaking chills had an OR of 3.23 (95% CI 1.35-7.52) and in a multivariate model the OR was 5.9 (95% CI 2.05-17.17) for those without prior antibiotics adjusted for age, sex, and prior antibiotics. The presence of vomiting was also addressed, but neither a univariate nor a multivariate logistic regression showed any association between vomiting and bacteremia. In conclusion, among patients at the emergency department with at least one affected vital sign, shaking chills but not vomiting were associated with bacteremia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".