Adoption in Canada of International Risk Scoring Tool to Predict Respiratory Syncytial Virus Hospitalization in Moderate-to-Late Preterm Infants (32–35 Weeks’ Gestational Age)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The advisory board to the Ontario Ministry of Health is considering adoption of the new three-variable International Risk Scoring Tool (IRST), which used data pooled from six observational studies (including PICNIC from Canada) to predict RSVH in 32 to 35 wGA infants (Blanken. PediatrPulmonol2018;53:605–12). Canada is currently using a seven-variable RST developed solely from PICNIC focused on 33 to 35 weeks’ gestational age (wGA) infants (Sampalis. Med Decis Making 2008; 28:471–80]. We explored the potential implications of switching from the Canadian to the IRST. Materials and Methods The two RSTs were compared for included risk factors and predictive accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve). Correlations (Spearman rank) between cut-off scores for low-, moderate-, and high-risk subjects were assessed against the pooled dataset using infants born 33 to 35 wGA with complete data for all risk factors in both RSTs. Results Please refer to [ Table A012 ] for a summary of main results. In details, the two RSTs contain many of the same risk factors (birth proximity to the RSV season, smoking, siblings, and day care), with the Canadian RST also including sex, small for GA, and familial eczema. Predictive accuracy of the two RSTs is similar (AUROC, IRST: 0.773 [sensitivity: 68.9%; specificity: 73.0%] vs. Canadian: 0.762 [68.2%; 71.9%]). Significant correlations between cut-off scores ( p < 0.001) and risk categories ( p < 0.001) were apparent, although the correlation coefficients were weak for both (scores: 0.217; categories: 0.055). While the proportion of high-risk infants was similar for the two RSTs (IRST: 0.6% vs. Canadian: 0.7%), a far greater number of infants were assigned moderate-risk by the IRST (19.9% vs. Canadian: 9.8%). Conclusion The IRST can be considered a simpler model (few risk factors) than the Canadian RST, but assigns more infants as moderate-risk. Combined with including 32 wGA infants, adoption of the IRST in Canada has cost-effective implications for RSV prophylaxis which warrants further investigation. Table A012 RST n Score Number in each risk category High Moderate Low 4,529 0–100 27 (0.6%) 443 (9.8%) 4,059 (89.6%) Canadian Small (<10th percentile) gestational age (yes or no) Sex (male vs. female) Born during RSV season a Family history of eczema (yes or no) Subject or siblings attending day care (yes or no) >5 individuals in the home, including subject (yes or no) >1 smoker in the household (yes or no) RSVH rate (%) 11.2% 4.3% 1.0% IRST 4,529 0–56 31 (0.7%) 902 (19.9%) 3,596 (79.4%) Birth 3 months before and 2 months after season start date (yes or no) Smokers in the household and/or while pregnant (neither, either, or both) Siblings (excluding multiples) and/or (planned) day care (neither, either, or both) RSVH rate (%) 9.5% 3.3% 1.0% Abbreviations: IRST, international RST; RST, risk scoring tool; RSVH, respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization. a November–January. Conflict of Interest None declared.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".