Development and validation of a cephalosporin allergy clinical decision rule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Like penicillin allergy labels, cephalosporin allergy labels go largely unverified and drive inappropriate antibiotic use. Clinical decision rules (CDR) have been validated to identify low-risk penicillin allergy labelled patients suitable for direct oral challenge (DOC); however, the generalisability to cephalosporin allergy remains uncertain. METHODS: Cephalosporin allergy tested cohorts from three hospitals in Australia were used for validation of a cephalosporin allergy CDR based on clinical variables utilised in the published penicillin allergy decision rule (PEN-FAST). Patients with a cephalosporin allergy label underwent allergy testing. North American tested cohorts were used for external validation. FINDINGS: From an Australian validation cohort of 228 patients and an external cohort of 167 patients, the four clinical features associated with a positive penicillin allergy from PEN-FAST showed similar associations to a positive cephalosporin test, with minor adjustments to scoring. Validation showed an AUROC of 0.921. A cut-off of less than three points for the newly directed CEPH-FAST was chosen to classify a low risk of cephalosporin allergy, for which six of 105 patients (5.7%) had positive allergy testing results. INTERPRETATION: Utilising the previously published and internationally validated tool PEN-FAST, we validated the same criteria with minor modifications for low-risk cephalosporin allergies. The results suggest that a CEPH-FAST score of less than three is associated with a high negative predictive value and could be used by clinicians and antimicrobial stewardship programmes to identify patients with low-risk cephalosporin allergies at the point of care, following local validation, who could proceed to DOC or use non-cross-reactive cephalosporins.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".