Urinary tract infection in infants with asymptomatic Jaundice: a meta-analysis UTI and Jaundice Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION Infants, especially neonates, present with jaundice with an unclear association with urinary tract infection. Evidence for such association is unclear, especially in a specific group of otherwise well-appearing infants born > 35 weeks. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Data sources We used the following databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and Cochrane library. Study selection We included observational studies that included infants born > 35 weeks gestation, younger than 12 months, asymptomatic other than jaundice, and urinary tract infection. Data extraction: After reviewing the eligibility, two reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of each study using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS We analyzed sixteen studies for a total of 2933 infants. The pooled incidence of UTI was 9.6% (95% confidence interval of 6% to 15%). The subgroup analysis failed to show any difference in incidence within the publication year, sample size, study design, study region, urine collection method, and age group. There was no explanation of heterogeneity noted by the meta-regression for UTI incidence with publication year, total bilirubin, sample size, and study quality. The funnel plot and Egger’s test revealed publication bias. CONCLUSIONS Nearly 1 in 10 otherwise asymptomatic infants with jaundice have a UTI. We recommend a rigorous large prospective study to confirm this finding.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".