The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Predictive Model for Serious Bacterial Infections Among Infants Younger Than 3 Months of Age
Abstract
Objective.: To develop a data-derived model for predicting serious bacterial infection (SBI) among febrile infants <3 months old. Methods.: All infants ≤90 days old with a temperature ≥38.0°C seen in an urban emergency department (ED) were retrospectively identified. SBI was defined as a positive culture of urine, blood, or cerebrospinal fluid. Tree-structured analysis via recursive partitioning was used to develop the model. SBI or No-SBI was the dichotomous outcome variable, and age, temperature, urinalysis (UA), white blood cell (WBC) count, absolute neutrophil count, and cerebrospinal fluid WBC were entered as potential predictors. The model was tested by V-fold cross-validation. Results.: Of 5279 febrile infants studied, SBI was diagnosed in 373 patients (7%): 316 urinary tract infections (UTIs), 17 meningitis, and 59 bacteremia (8 with meningitis, 11 with UTIs). The model sequentially used 4 clinical parameters to define high-risk patients: positive UA, WBC count ≥20 000/mm3 or ≤4100/mm3, temperature ≥39.6°C, and age <13 days. The sensitivity of the model for SBI is 82% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78%–86%) and the negative predictive value is 98.3% (95% CI: 97.8%–98.7%). The negative predictive value for bacteremia or meningitis is 99.6% (95% CI: 99.4%–99.8%). The relative risk between high- and low-risk groups is 12.1 (95% CI: 9.3–15.6). Sixty-six SBI patients (18%) were misclassified into the lower risk group: 51 UTIs, 14 with bacteremia, and 1 with meningitis. Conclusions.: Decision-tree analysis using common clinical variables can reasonably predict febrile infants at high-risk for SBI. Sequential use of UA, WBC count, temperature, and age can identify infants who are at high risk of SBI with a relative risk of 12.1 compared with lower-risk infants.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Evaluation and Management of Well-Appearing Febrile Infants 8 to 60 Days Old
Pantell, R. H., Roberts, K. B., Adams, W. G., Dreyer, B. P., Kuppermann, N., O’Leary, S. T., Okechukwu, K., Woods, C. R., Byington, C. L., Lavelle, J. M., et al. (2021) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2021-052228 · Cited by 444
Levine, D. A., Platt, S. L., Dayan, P. S., Macias, C. G., Zorc, J. J., Krief, W., Schor, J., Bank, D., Fefferman, N., Shaw, K. N., et al. (2004) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1728 · Cited by 342
Big Data in Public Health: Terminology, Machine Learning, and Privacy
Mooney, S. J., & Pejaver, V. (2018) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014208 · Cited by 325
Van den Bruel, A., Haj-Hassan, T., Thompson, M., Buntinx, F., & Mant, D. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)62000-6 · Cited by 317
Evaluation and Management of Febrile, Well-appearing Young Infants
Biondi, E. A., & Byington, C. L. (2015) · Infectious Disease Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.idc.2015.05.008 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Bachur, R. G., & Harper, M. B.
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2001-08-01
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 311-316
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W2115279909
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predictive Model for Serious Bacterial Infections Among Infants Younger Than 3 Months of Age. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.108.2.311
- The paper
- Bachur, R. G., & Harper, M. B. (2001). Predictive Model for Serious Bacterial Infections Among Infants Younger Than 3 Months of Age. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.108.2.311
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.