A 10‐Year Retrospective Review of <i>Salmonella</i> Infections at the Children’s Hospital in London, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe Salmonella infections in children presenting to the Children's Hospital (London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario), to assess risk factors for infection and to examine whether younger children, particularly infants younger than 12 weeks of age, experience higher morbidity than older children. METHODS: A 10-year retrospective review of children with Salmonella infections at the Children's Hospital was conducted. Patient demographics, risk factors for infection, clinical characteristics, bacteriology and outcome were collected from the hospital charts and laboratory records. Data were separated into groups based on age and recent use of antibiotics to analyze differences in outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-six children with Salmonella infections presented to the Children's Hospital over a 10-year period. Common risk factors for Salmonella infection included having sick contacts, living in a rural area, recent travel, contact with pets (especially reptiles) and exposure to local water. Younger age was associated with an increased likelihood of admission to hospital, treatment with antibiotics and a longer course of antibiotic therapy. This was true when comparing older infants with those younger than 12 weeks of age. Patients recently treated with antibiotics and those with significant underlying medical conditions were more likely to be admitted. CONCLUSIONS: A wider knowledge of the epidemiological risk factors for Salmonella infection may improve diagnosis. Higher admission rates were expected in children younger than 12 weeks of age, those recently treated with antibiotics and those who had a significant underlying medical condition. A prospective, multicentre study is needed to further address questions regarding increased illness severity and appropriate management of Salmonella infections in children younger than 12 weeks of age.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".