Microbial Etiologies and Clinical Characteristics of Children Seeking Emergency Department Care Due to Vomiting in the Absence of Diarrhea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As children with isolated vomiting are rarely able to provide a specimen suitable for routine pathogen testing, we have limited knowledge about their infecting pathogens. METHODS: Between December 2014 and August 2018, children <18 years old with presumed acute gastroenteritis who presented to 2 emergency departments (EDs) in Alberta, Canada, were recruited. Eligible participants had ≥3 episodes of vomiting and/or diarrhea in a 24-hour period, <7 days of symptoms, and provided a rectal swab or stool specimen. We quantified the proportion of children with isolated vomiting in whom an enteropathogen was identified, and analyzed clinical characteristics, types of enteropathogens, resources used, and alternative diagnoses. RESULTS: Of the 2695 participants, at the ED visit, 295 (10.9%), 1321 (49.0%), and 1079 (40.0%) reported having isolated diarrhea, vomiting and diarrhea, or isolated vomiting, respectively. An enteropathogen was detected most commonly in those with vomiting and diarrhea (1067/1321; 80.8%); detection did not differ between those with isolated diarrhea (170/295; 57.6%) and isolated vomiting (589/1079; 54.6%) (95% confidence interval of the difference: -3.4%, 9.3%). Children with isolated vomiting most often had a virus (557/1077; 51.7%), most commonly norovirus (321/1077; 29.8%); 5.7% (62/1079) had a bacterial pathogen. X-rays, ultrasounds, and urine tests were most commonly performed in children with isolated vomiting. Alternate etiologies were most common in those with isolated vomiting (5.7%; 61/1079). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of enteropathogen identification in children with isolated vomiting using molecular diagnostic tests and rectal swabs is substantial. Molecular diagnostics offer an emerging diagnostic strategy in children with isolated vomiting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".