Short duration of parenteral antibiotics in infants with urinary tract infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Current guidelines by the Canadian Paediatric Society on treating urinary tract infections (UTIs) exclude infants ≤ 60 days old. There is considerable practice variability in this age group, especially around the optimal duration of parenteral antibiotics. The study aimed to assess local practice patterns, and the safety of a short course (≤3 days) of parenteral antibiotics in young infants. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 95 infants (≤60 days) with confirmed UTIs were identified at British Columbia Children's Hospital. Patients receiving short (≤3 days) and long (>3 days) duration of parenteral antibiotics were compared. Outcomes of interest included urinary tract infection recurrence within 30 days, hospital length of stay (LOS), representation, and readmission. Results: Twenty infants (21%) received a short course of parenteral antibiotics. These infants were older (median 47 days versus 28 days) and non-bacteremic. Urinary tract infection recurrence was identified in 8 patients (8%), of which 7 were treated with a long duration (P = 1.0). Patients treated with a short duration had a significantly shorter LOS, with a mean difference of 4.21 days [95% CI: 3.37 to 5.05] (P < 0.001). All five (5%) bacteremic patients were treated exclusively with parenteral antibiotics. Conclusions: In a Canadian setting, a short course of parenteral antibiotics is safe in young, non-bacteremic infants with UTIs. Despite substantial evidence, local practice patterns suggest a tendency towards prescription of long courses, providing an opportunity for quality improvement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".