MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

External Validation of Brief Resolved Unexplained Events Prediction Rules for Serious Underlying Diagnosis

2024· article· en· W4405425825 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nassr Nama, Ye Shen, Jeffrey N. Bone, Zerlyn Lee, Kara Picco, Falla Jin, Jessica L. Foulds, Josée Anne Gagnon, Chris Novak, Brigitte Parisien, Matthew Donlan, Ran D. Goldman, Anupam Sehgal, Joanna Holland, Sanjay Mahant, Joel S. Tieder, Peter J. Gill, Polina Kyrychenko, Nardin Kirolos, Ioulia Opotchanova, Émilie Harnois, Elisa Frizon-Peresa, Praveen Rajasegaran, Parnian Hosseini, Melody Wyslobicky, Susan Akbaroghli, Prathiksha Nalan, Marie-Pier Goupil, Shawn Lee, Émy Philibert, Juliette Dufrense, Raman Chawla, Martin Ogwuru

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Pediatrics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreStollery Children's HospitalAlberta Children's HospitalKingston General HospitalUniversity of CalgaryBC Children's HospitalUniversité LavalUniversity of AlbertaMontreal Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationUniversité de MontréalHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyCohortPredictive valueCohort studyPediatricsPresentation (obstetrics)Predictive value of testsEmergency medicineInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) higher-risk criteria for brief resolved unexplained events (BRUE) have a low positive predictive value (4.8%) and misclassify most infants as higher risk (>90%). New BRUE prediction rules from a US cohort of 3283 infants showed improved discrimination; however, these rules have not been validated in an external cohort. Objective: To externally validate new BRUE prediction rules and compare them with the AAP higher-risk criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective multicenter cohort study conducted from 2017 to 2021 and monitored for 90 days after index presentation. The setting included infants younger than 1 year with a BRUE identified through retrospective chart review from 11 Canadian hospitals. Study data were analyzed from March 2022 to March 2024. Exposures: The BRUE prediction rules. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was a serious underlying diagnosis, defined as conditions where a delay in diagnosis could lead to increased morbidity or mortality. Results: Of 1042 patients (median [IQR] age, 41 [13-84] days; 529 female [50.8%]), 977 (93.8%) were classified as higher risk by the AAP criteria. A total of 79 patients (7.6%) had a serious underlying diagnosis. For this outcome, the AAP criteria demonstrated a sensitivity of 100.0% (95% CI, 95.4%-100.0%), a specificity of 6.7% (95% CI, 5.2%-8.5%), a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09), and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.53-0.54). The BRUE prediction rule for discerning serious diagnoses displayed an AUC of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.54-0.67; calibration intercept: 0.60), which improved to an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.76; P < .001; calibration intercept: 0.00) after model revision. Event recurrence was noted in 163 patients (15.6%). For this outcome, the AAP criteria yielded a sensitivity of 99.4% (95% CI, 96.6%-100.0%), a specificity of 7.3% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.2%), an LR+ of 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10), and an AUC of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.56-0.58). The AUC of the prediction rule stood at 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72; calibration intercept: 0.15). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this multicenter cohort study show that the BRUE prediction rules outperformed the AAP higher-risk criteria on external geographical validation, and performance improved after recalibration. These rules provide clinicians and families with a more precise tool to support decision-making, grounded in individual risk tolerance.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA PediatricsSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207