In-hospital mortality risk stratification in children aged under 5 years with pneumonia with or without pulse oximetry: A secondary analysis of the Pneumonia REsearch Partnership to Assess WHO REcommendations (PREPARE) dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We determined the pulse oximetry benefit in pediatric pneumonia mortality risk stratification and chest-indrawing pneumonia in-hospital mortality risk factors. METHODS: We report the characteristics and in-hospital pneumonia-related mortality of children aged 2-59 months who were included in the Pneumonia Research Partnership to Assess WHO Recommendations dataset. We developed multivariable logistic regression models of chest-indrawing pneumonia to identify mortality risk factors. RESULTS: Among 285,839 children, 164,244 (57.5%) from hospital-based studies were included. Pneumonia case fatality risk (CFR) without pulse oximetry measurement was higher than with measurement (5.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6-5.9% vs 2.1%, 95% CI 1.9-2.4%). One in five children with chest-indrawing pneumonia was hypoxemic (19.7%, 95% CI 19.0-20.4%), and the hypoxemic CFR was 10.3% (95% CI 9.1-11.5%). Other mortality risk factors were younger age (either 2-5 months [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 9.94, 95% CI 6.67-14.84] or 6-11 months [aOR 2.67, 95% CI 1.71-4.16]), moderate malnutrition (aOR 2.41, 95% CI 1.87-3.09), and female sex (aOR 1.82, 95% CI 1.43-2.32). CONCLUSION: Children with a pulse oximetry measurement had a lower CFR. Many children hospitalized with chest-indrawing pneumonia were hypoxemic and one in 10 died. Young age and moderate malnutrition were risk factors for in-hospital chest-indrawing pneumonia-related mortality. Pulse oximetry should be integrated in pneumonia hospital care for children under 5 years.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".