MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417136300 · doi:10.1001/jama.2025.21454

Prediction of Bacteremia and Bacterial Meningitis Among Febrile Infants Aged 28 Days or Younger

2025· article· en· W4417136300 on OpenAlexafffund
Brett Burstein, Thomas Waterfield, Etimbuk Umana, Jianling Xie, Nathan Kuppermann

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
KeywordsBacterial meningitisBacteremiaLumbar punctureMeningitisMicrobiological culture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Fever in the first month of life is often the only sign of life-threatening invasive bacterial infection, specifically bacteremia or bacterial meningitis. Most international guidelines recommend routine lumbar punctures for all febrile infants 28 days or younger to rule out bacterial meningitis. Clinical prediction rules may allow for select testing, but limited information exists on their performance to identify infants at low risk for invasive bacterial infections. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the updated Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) prediction rule for identifying febrile infants 28 days or younger with bacteremia or bacterial meningitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pooled analysis of 4 published prospective cohort studies from pediatric emergency departments across 6 countries within the global Pediatric Emergency Research Network included previously healthy, non-ill-appearing, full-term (≥37 weeks' gestation) infants aged 28 days or younger with a temperature greater than or equal to 38.0 °C who underwent urine, blood, and serum testing. Exposure: Infants were classified as low risk if they had a negative urinalysis/dipstick test result, serum procalcitonin less than or equal to 0.5 ng/mL, and blood absolute neutrophil count less than or equal to 4000/mm3. Main Outcomes and Measures: Meta-analytic methods were applied to assess diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values) of the PECARN rule for detection of infants with invasive bacterial infections (bacteremia or bacterial meningitis). Results: Among 1537 infants 28 days or younger (905 male, 1324 hospitalized, 1080 with lumbar punctures), 69 (4.5%) had invasive bacterial infections, including 11 (0.7%) with bacterial meningitis. Overall, 632 (41.1%) met low-risk criteria. The prediction rule had a sensitivity of 94.2% (95% CI, 85.6%-97.8%), specificity of 41.6% (95% CI, 36.7%-46.7%), positive predictive value of 6.9% (95% CI, 4.8%-9.9%), and negative predictive value of 99.4% (95% CI, 98.1%-99.8%) for invasive bacterial infections. In a secondary analysis of 2531 infants from the 2 US-based cohorts from which the rule was originally derived and the 4 validation cohorts, 96 (3.8%) had invasive bacterial infections, 22 (0.9%) had bacterial meningitis, and 1079 (42.6%) were classified as low risk; rule performance was similar. No infants with bacterial meningitis were misclassified in the primary or secondary analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: The updated PECARN rule had high sensitivity but lower specificity for identifying febrile infants 28 days or younger with invasive bacterial infections in this study, with no missed cases of bacterial meningitis. These results may support shared decision-making regarding select vs routine use of lumbar puncture among infants classified as being at low risk of invasive bacterial infections.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.019
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207