A systematic review of tools for predicting complications in patients with influenza-like illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify tools that predict the risk of complications for patients presenting to an outpatient clinic or an emergency department (ED) with influenza-like illness. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from inception to July 2023. We included articles reporting on the derivation or validation of a score or algorithm used to stratify the risk of hospitalization or mortality among patients with influenza-like illness in the ED or outpatient clinic. Results: Twelve articles reporting on eight scores and six predictive models were identified. For predicting the need for hospitalization, the area under the curve (AUC) of the PMEWS and the CURB-65 ranged respectively from 0.76 to 0.94, and 0.65 to 0.88. The Community Assessment Tool had an AUC of 0.62. For predicting inpatient mortality, AUC was 0.66 for PMEWS and 0.79 for CURB-65, 0.79 for the SIRS criteria and 0.86 for the qSOFA score. Two scores were developed without external validation during the Covid-19 pandemic. The CovHos score and the Canadian Covid discharge score had an AUC ranged from 0.70 to 0.91. The predictive models performed adequately (AUC from 0.76 to 0.92) but will require external validation for clinical use. Tool diversity and study population heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Conclusion: Although the CURB, PMEWS and qSOFA scores appear to predict accurately the risk of complications of influenza-like illness, none were reliable enough to justify their widespread ED use. Refinement of an existing tool or development of a new tool to optimize the management of these patients is needed.
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 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".