Protocol for a multi-country retrospective observational paediatric sepsis epidemiological study (SENTINEL International)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Improving outcomes from sepsis in children is a WHO Global Health Priority, yet mortality from sepsis remains high, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This database from children with community-acquired childhood sepsis in LMICs and some high-income countries will allow analysis of the burden of disease, including incidence, severity and outcomes. Understanding these aspects of sepsis care is fundamental for the design and conduct of future international interventional trials to improve childhood sepsis outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicountry retrospective observational study will include children up to 18 years of age presenting to emergency departments with suspected sepsis, defined as admission to hospital for treatment with intravenous antibiotics plus (1) a provisional diagnosis of sepsis and/or (2) treatment for suspected sepsis (operationalised as the administration of one or more fluid bolus to treat impaired perfusion or vasoactive infusion). Presenting characteristics, management and outcomes will be collected. These will include vital signs, serum biomarkers, intravenous fluid administration for the first 24 hours of hospitalisation, organ support therapies delivered, antimicrobial use, microbiological diagnoses, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and mortality censored at hospital discharge or 30 days from enrolment (whichever occurs first). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Central ethics approval was received from the Royal Children's Hospital of Melbourne, Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/100648/RCHM-2023). Each international site will be required to obtain local Institutional Research Ethics Board approval. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at academic conferences and through lay media. A cleaned study database and individual site-level data will be made available to site investigators upon completion of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 23 January 2024 prior to commencement of recruitment (ACTRN12624000052538).
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 | 0.043 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.096 | 0.024 |
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".