We have located links that may give you full text access.
Using Clinical History Factors to Identify Bacterial Infections in Young Febrile Infants.
Journal of Pediatrics 2021 May
OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel predictive model using primarily clinical history factors and compare performance to the widely used Rochester Low Risk (RLR) model.
STUDY DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, we identified infants brought to one pediatric emergency department from January 2014 to December 2016. We included infants age 0-90 days, with temperature ≥38°C, and documented gestational age and illness duration. The primary outcome was bacterial infection. We used 10 predictors to develop regression and ensemble machine learning models, which we trained and tested using 10-fold cross-validation. We compared areas under the curve (AUCs), sensitivities, and specificities of the RLR, regression, and ensemble models.
RESULTS: Of 877 infants, 67 had a bacterial infection (7.6%). The AUCs of the RLR, regression, and ensemble models were 0.776 (95% CI 0.746, 0.807), 0.945 (0.913, 0.977), and 0.956 (0.935, 0.975), respectively. Using a bacterial infection risk threshold of .01, the sensitivity and specificity of the regression model was 94.6% (87.4%, 100%) and 74.5% (62.4%, 85.4%), compared with 95.5% (87.5%, 99.1%) and 59.6% (56.2%, 63.0%) using the RLR model.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the RLR model, sensitivities of the novel predictive models were similar whereas AUCs and specificities were significantly greater. If externally validated, these models, by producing an individualized bacterial infection risk estimate, may offer a targeted approach to young febrile infants that is noninvasive and inexpensive.
STUDY DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, we identified infants brought to one pediatric emergency department from January 2014 to December 2016. We included infants age 0-90 days, with temperature ≥38°C, and documented gestational age and illness duration. The primary outcome was bacterial infection. We used 10 predictors to develop regression and ensemble machine learning models, which we trained and tested using 10-fold cross-validation. We compared areas under the curve (AUCs), sensitivities, and specificities of the RLR, regression, and ensemble models.
RESULTS: Of 877 infants, 67 had a bacterial infection (7.6%). The AUCs of the RLR, regression, and ensemble models were 0.776 (95% CI 0.746, 0.807), 0.945 (0.913, 0.977), and 0.956 (0.935, 0.975), respectively. Using a bacterial infection risk threshold of .01, the sensitivity and specificity of the regression model was 94.6% (87.4%, 100%) and 74.5% (62.4%, 85.4%), compared with 95.5% (87.5%, 99.1%) and 59.6% (56.2%, 63.0%) using the RLR model.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the RLR model, sensitivities of the novel predictive models were similar whereas AUCs and specificities were significantly greater. If externally validated, these models, by producing an individualized bacterial infection risk estimate, may offer a targeted approach to young febrile infants that is noninvasive and inexpensive.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app