MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115014857 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaf116.026

26 Derivation and validation of a clinical decision rule to discriminate bacteremia from contaminants among children with a positive blood culture in the emergency department

2025· article· en· W7115014857 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité de MontréalSickKids FoundationCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacteremiaBlood cultureClinical prediction ruleEmergency departmentSepsisRetrospective cohort studyClinical judgment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Blood cultures are commonly performed to rule out bacteremia in children seen in the emergency department (ED), which if missed, can progress to sepsis and even death. While a true bacteremia is potentially life-threatening and requires urgent treatment, many cases of positive blood cultures are contaminants leading to unnecessary antibiotic exposures and hospitalizations. Objectives We aimed to derive and validate a clinical decision rule to discriminate bacteremia from contaminants among children seen in the ED with a preliminary positive blood culture. Design/Methods This study includes two retrospective cohorts of children with positive blood cultures from a Canadian paediatric ED from January 2018 until May 2024. The primary outcome was true bacteremia defined using two-step standardized approach based on the bacteria involved and the clinical outcome assessment adjudicated by two reviewers. Predictors of bacteremia were derived from a literature review and a consensus of experts. We used Classification and Regression Tree models to derive a highly sensitive clinical decision rule to distinguish between true bacteremia and contamination. The validity was assessed by measuring the proportion of children with true bacteremia classified at high or moderate risk by the clinical decision rule (sensitivity) and the proportion of contaminants classified at low risk by the rule (specificity). For participants discharged home at the index visit, the clinical utility of the rule was measured by comparing the clinical decision rule to the treating physician's management. Results A total of 574 children, including 285 cases of bacteremia were included in the derivation phase, and 173 (including 83 bacteremia) in the validation cohort. Derived from the final selected model, we were able to classify children into three categories (high, moderate and low risk). Children at high risk of bacteremia were identified based on the initial Gram stain (Gram positive bacteria in pair or chain, or all Gram negative bacteria). In the absence of high-risk Gram stain criteria, children were at moderate risk if they had any one of three risks factors (Culture positive in less than 17 hours; Internal devices; Suspicion of osteo-articular infection). Children without any of the four criteria were classified as low risk. This clinical decision rule demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% (95%CI: 98-100%) and specificity of 65% (95%CI: 59-70%) in the derivation cohort. In the validation cohort, the clinical decision rule demonstrated a sensitivity of 99% (95%CI: 94-100%) and a specificity of 60% (95%CI: 50-70%). Applying the rule to the 43 children initially discharged in the validation cohort would decrease the number of admissions from 34 to 21 without missing a true bacteremia case. Conclusion We created a highly sensitive clinical decision rule to identify true bacteremia among children seen in the ED with a preliminary positive blood culture. The use of this clinical decision rule will decrease unnecessary testing and antibiotics in a subset of patients while ensuring treatment of children at high risk of true bacteremia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207