Accuracy of Criteria to Identify Bacterial Infections in Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".