C-Reactive Protein and the Outcome of a Pediatric Emergency Department 7 Days Revisit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric emergency department (PED) return visits represent an important quality of care metric and constitute a patient-centered outcome. C-reactive protein (CRP) is an inflammatory biomarker that is commonly used as screening tool in the PED. In this study, we assessed the clinical outcomes of children whose levels of CRP are 150 mg/L or higher at the initial PED visit and if such levels could be useful in predicting outcomes at a second PED visit. METHODS: A historical cohort study of all patients who visited the PED between July 2007 and June 2017 and had a CRP value of 150 mg/L or greater in the setting of a febrile illness. Data of patients with a return visit to the PED within 7 days were assessed for an association between laboratory values, diagnosis and clinical outcome. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six index visits were included in this study. One hundred fifteen (84.6%) of the revisits were discharged after their second visit, and 21 (15.4%) were admitted to the inpatient unit. Admitted patients did not differ from patients who were discharged home in diagnosis and CRP levels, but a difference in white blood cell and absolute neutrophil counts was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity of the inflammatory response, as expressed by the high concentrations of CRP in children, does not seem to predict the outcome at a repeat PED visit within 7 days.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".