MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303987068 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000003086

Validation of a Computational Phenotype to Identify Acute Brain Dysfunction in Pediatric Sepsis

2022· article· en· W4303987068 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia M. Alcamo, Gregory J. Barren, Andrew Becker, Katie Hayes, Julie C. Fitzgerald, Fran Balamuth, Jeffrey W. Pennington, Martha A. Q. Curley, Robert C. Tasker, Alexis Topjian, Scott L. Weiss

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPediatric Oncology Group
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicineSepsisGlasgow Coma ScaleConstruct validityCohortIntensive careInternal medicinePhenotypeCriterion validityRetrospective cohort studyPredictive validityPediatricsIntensive care medicinePsychiatryPsychometricsClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To validate a computational phenotype that identifies acute brain dysfunction (ABD) based on clinician concern for neurologic or behavioral changes in pediatric sepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Single academic children's hospital. PATIENTS: Four thousand two hundred eighty-nine index sepsis episodes. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: An existing computational phenotype of ABD was optimized to include routinely collected variables indicative of clinician concern for acute neurologic or behavioral change (completion of CT or MRI, electroencephalogram, or new antipsychotic administration). First, the computational phenotype was compared with an ABD reference standard established from chart review of 527 random sepsis episodes to determine criterion validity. Next, the computational phenotype was compared with a separate validation cohort of 3,762 index sepsis episodes to determine content and construct validity. Criterion validity for the final phenotype had sensitivity 83% (95% CI, 76-89%), specificity 93% (90-95%), positive predictive value 84% (77-89%), and negative predictive value 93% (90-96%). In the validation cohort, the computational phenotype identified ABD in 35% (95% CI 33-36%). Content validity was demonstrated as those with the ABD computational phenotype were more likely to have characteristics of neurologic dysfunction and severe illness than those without the ABD phenotype, including nonreactive pupils (15% vs 1%; p < 0.001), Glasgow Coma Scale less than 5 (44% vs 12%; p < 0.001), greater than or equal to two nonneurologic organ dysfunctions (50% vs 25%; p < 0.001), and need for intensive care (81% vs 65%; p < 0.001). Construct validity was demonstrated by higher odds for mortality (odds ratio [OR], 6.9; 95% CI, 5.3-9.1) and discharge to rehabilitation (OR, 11.4; 95% CI 7.4-17.5) in patients with, versus without, the ABD computational phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: A computational phenotype of ABD indicative of clinician concern for new neurologic or behavioral change offers a valid retrospective measure to identify episodes of sepsis that involved ABD. This computational phenotype provides a feasible and efficient way to study risk factors for and outcomes from ABD using routinely collected clinical data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207