Presentations and Outcomes Among Infants ≤90 Days With and Without SARS-CoV-2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare symptoms and outcomes among infants aged ≤90 days tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a broad, international sample of emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of infants aged 0 to 90 days with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections tested using molecular approaches and with 14-day follow-up. The parent studies were conducted at 41 EDs in 10 countries (the global Pediatric Emergency Research Network; March 2020-June 2021) and 14 EDs across Canada (Pediatric Emergency Research Canada network; August 2020-February 2022). Symptom profiles included presence and number of presenting symptoms. Clinical outcomes included hospitalization, ICU admission, and severe outcomes (a composite of intensive interventions, severe organ impairment, or death). RESULTS: Among 1048 infants tested for SARS-CoV-2, 1007 (96.1%) were symptomatic at presentation and 432 (41.2%) were SARS-CoV-2-positive. A systemic symptom (any of the following: Apnea, drowsiness, irritability, or lethargy) was most common and present in 646 (61.6%) infants, regardless of SARS-CoV-2 status. Although fever and upper respiratory symptoms were more common among SARS-CoV-2-positive infants, dehydration, gastrointestinal, skin, and oral symptoms, and the overall number of presenting symptoms did not differ between groups. Infants with SARS-CoV-2 infections were less likely to be hospitalized (32.9% vs 44.8%; difference -11.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) -17.9% to -6.0%]), require intensive care (1.4% vs 5.0%; difference -3.6% [95% CI -5.7% to -1.6%]), and experience severe outcomes (1.4% vs 5.4%; difference -4.0% [95% CI -6.1% to -1.9%]). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infections may be difficult to differentiate from similar illnesses among the youngest infants but are generally milder. SARS-CoV-2 testing can help inform clinical management.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".