MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250256807 · doi:10.1542/gr.44-1-7

Accuracy of Criteria to Identify Bacterial Infections in Infants

2020· article· en· W4250256807 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAAP Grand Rounds · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and Maternal Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Source: Lyons TW, Garro AC, Cruz AT, et al. Performance of the modified Boston and Philadelphia criteria for invasive bacterial infections. Pediatrics. 2020; 145( 4): e20193538; doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3538[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Investigators from multiple institutions conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study to assess the performance of the Boston and Philadelphia criteria for stratifying infants’ risk of bacterial infection. Infants aged 29–60 days who were evaluated for meningitis at 1 of 23 EDs in the United States and Canada from 2005–2013 were eligible. Infants were included if they had cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood cultures obtained within 24 hours of ED arrival. Infants admitted to the ICU were excluded. Demographics and clinical data were abstracted from the medical record. The primary outcome was invasive bacterial infection (IBI), defined as growth of pathogenic bacteria from either a blood or CSF culture. Investigators applied the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPediatrics%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1542%252Fpeds.2019-3538%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F32205466%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=pediatrics&resid=145/4/e20193538&atom=%2Faapgrand%2F44%2F1%2F7.atom

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAP Grand RoundsSame topicNeonatal and Maternal InfectionsFrench-language works237,207