MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391063005 · doi:10.1001/jama.2024.0196

Development and Validation of the Phoenix Criteria for Pediatric Sepsis and Septic Shock

2024· article· en· W4391063005 on OpenAlexaff
L. Nelson Sanchez‐Pinto, Tellen D. Bennett, Peter E. DeWitt, Seth Russell, Margaret Rebull, Blake Martin, Samuel Akech, David J. Albers, Elizabeth R. Alpern, Fran Balamuth, Melania M. Bembea, Mohammod Jobayer Chisti, Idris Evans, Christopher M. Horvat, Juan Camilo Jaramillo-Bustamante, Niranjan Kissoon, Kusum Menon, Halden F. Scott, Scott L. Weiss, Matthew O. Wiens, Jerry J. Zimmerman, Andrew C. Argent, Lauren R. Sorce, Luregn J. Schlapbach, R. Scott Watson, Paolo Biban, Enitan D. Carrol, Kathleen Chiotos, Cláudio Flauzino de Oliveira, Mark W. Hall, David Inwald, Paul Ishimine, Michael Levin, Rakesh Lodha, Simon Nadel, Satoshi Nakagawa, Mark Peters, Adrienne G. Randolph, Suchitra Ranjit, Daniela Carla de Souza, Pierre Tissières, James L. Wynn

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReceiver operating characteristicSeptic shockSepsisOrgan dysfunctionIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineCohortInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Pediatric Sepsis Definition Task Force sought to develop and validate new clinical criteria for pediatric sepsis and septic shock using measures of organ dysfunction through a data-driven approach. Objective: To derive and validate novel criteria for pediatric sepsis and septic shock across differently resourced settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study in 10 health systems in the US, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites. Data were collected from emergency and inpatient encounters for children (aged <18 years) from 2010 to 2019: 3 049 699 in the development (including derivation and internal validation) set and 581 317 in the external validation set. Exposure: Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from 8 existing scores. The final model was then translated into an integer-based score used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome for all analyses was in-hospital mortality. Model- and integer-based score performance measures included the area under the precision recall curve (AUPRC; primary) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC; secondary). For binary criteria, primary performance measures were positive predictive value and sensitivity. Results: Among the 172 984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a 4-organ-system model performed best. The integer version of that model, the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had AUPRCs of 0.23 to 0.38 (95% CI range, 0.20-0.39) and AUROCs of 0.71 to 0.92 (95% CI range, 0.70-0.92) to predict mortality in the validation sets. Using a Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis and sepsis plus 1 or more cardiovascular point as criteria for septic shock resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference (IPSCC) criteria across differently resourced settings. Conclusions and Relevance: The novel Phoenix sepsis criteria, which were derived and validated using data from higher- and lower-resource settings, had improved performance for the diagnosis of pediatric sepsis and septic shock compared with the existing IPSCC criteria.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations200
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207