Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 22;16(1):e0244721. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244721

A novel score system of blood tests for differentiating Kawasaki disease from febrile children

Chih-Min Tsai 1,#, Chi-Hsiang Chu 2,#, Xi Liu 3, Ken-Pen Weng 4,5, Shih-Feng Liu 6,7, Ying-Hsien Huang 1,8,*, Ho-Chang Kuo 1,6,8,*
Editor: Colin Johnson9
PMCID: PMC7822339  PMID: 33481812

Abstract

Background

Kawasaki disease is the most common cause of acquired heart disease among febrile children under the age of 5 years old. It is also a clinically diagnosed disease. In this study, we developed and assessed a novel score system using objective parameters to differentiate Kawasaki disease from febrile children.

Methods

We analyzed 6,310 febrile children and 485 Kawasaki disease subjects in this study. We collected biological parameters of a routine blood test, including complete blood count with differential, C-reactive protein, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase. Receiver operating characteristic curve, logistic regression, and Youden’s index were all used to develop the prediction model. Two other independent cohorts from different hospitals were used for verification.

Results

We obtained eight independent predictors (platelets, eosinophil, alanine aminotransferase, C-reactive protein, hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, and monocyte) and found the top three scores to be eosinophil >1.5% (score: 7), alanine aminotransferase >30 U/L (score: 6), and C-reactive protein>25 mg/L (score: 6). A score of 14 represents the best sensitivity value plus specificity prediction rate for Kawasaki disease. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for our cohort were 0.824, 0.839, and 0.838, respectively. The verification test of two independent cohorts of Kawasaki disease patients (N = 103 and 170) from two different institutes had a sensitivity of 0.780 (213/273).

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate a novel score system with good discriminatory ability for differentiating between children with Kawasaki disease and other febrile children, as well as highlight the importance of eosinophil in Kawasaki disease. Using this novel score system can help first-line physicians diagnose and then treat Kawasaki disease early.

Introduction

The most common reason that young children seek medical care in pediatric emergency departments (PED) is fever [1]. In most cases, the primary causes of such fever consist of self-limited viral infection or bacterial infection [2]. Among febrile children (FC), Kawasaki disease (KD) is the most concerning with regard to acquired heart disease in children under the age of 5 years old [3]. KD is characterized by prolonged fever for more than 5 days, bilateral non-purulent conjunctivitis, diffuse mucosal inflammation, polymorphous skin rashes, indurative angioedema of the hands and feet, and non-suppurative cervical lymphadenopathy; fever lasting more than 96 hours with erythematous changes on the palm and three other major symptoms can also fit the diagnosis of KD [4, 5]. However, all the major signs for diagnosing KD are subjective. To prevent the most severe sequela or complications of coronary artery aneurysms (CAA) in KD patients [4, 6], intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy needs to be introduced early in order to reduce the complication of CAA. Both randomized, controlled studies and meta-analyses have confirmed that IVIG treatment in KD patients is most effective when given within 10 days of fever onset and also reduces the risk of CAA [5, 79]. Therefore, early awareness of KD is particularly important for both clinicians and parents. However, the greatest challenge for clinicians in PED is the early identification of KD itself because KD shares many clinical signs with other childhood febrile illnesses [10]. Furthermore, 20%‐30% of KD patients do not completely fulfill the above diagnostic criteria and are thus considered as incomplete KD, which often makes diagnosis even more challenging for clinicians that are not experienced pediatricians [5, 11].

Although no single laboratory examination can serve as a golden standard diagnostic tool for KD, we have endeavored to develop many quick methods for the early identification of KD [1214]. However, such methods are still far from being applied in clinical practice. Ling et al. described a KD scoring system with either clinical presentation, laboratory test results, or their combination to differentiate KD from FC [15] and further improved their two-step algorithm with another cohort in 2016 [10]. Nevertheless, subjective clinical presentations still played an important role in their prediction model. In this study, we developed and assessed a new scoring system of objective routine blood measurements without any clinical inspection data for distinguishing KD in young FC in PED.

Materials and methods

Study population

This study is a retrospective case-control study. Both complete and incomplete KD patients diagnosed in Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital from January 2009 to December 2017 were enrolled to form our case group. The clinical data sources of the KD group were accessed by Prof. H-C Kuo. Both complete and incomplete KD patients were required to meet the diagnosis criteria stipulated by the American Heart Association [5]. The diagnosis of complete KD is based on the presence of ≥ 5 days of fever and the presence of ≥ 4 of the 5 principal clinical features. These five features consist of the following: (1) erythema and cracking of lips, strawberry tongue, and/or erythema of oral and pharyngeal mucosa, (2) bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection without exudate, (3) rash: maculopapular, diffuse erythroderma, or erythema multiforme-like, (4) erythema and edema of the hands and feet in the acute phase and/or periungual desquamation in the subacute phase, and (5) cervical lymphadenopathy (≥1.5 cm diameter), usually unilateral. In the presence of ≥ 4 principal clinical criteria, particularly when redness and swelling of the hands and feet are present, a KD diagnosis may be made with only 4 days of fever. Children with fever ≥ 5 days and 2 or 3 compatible clinical criteria are then evaluated with additional laboratory tests. If these children had ≥3 supplemental laboratory criteria (anemia for age, platelet count ≥450,000 after the seventh day of fever, albumin ≤3.0 g/dL, elevated ALT level, WBC count ≥15,000/mm3, and ≥10 WBC/HPF on urinalysis) or a positive echocardiogram, a diagnosis of incomplete KD was made. In our KD series, we have demonstrated that 94% of patients diagnosed with KD were under the age of 5 years old [16]. Therefore, we enrolled patients younger than five years old without a diagnosis of KD as our control group. These controls presented to the PED of Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan with fever during the period of January 2009 through December 2015. Children suspected of having KD were excluded from the FC group. The clinical data sources of the control group were accessed by Prof. Y-H Huang and Dr. C-M Tsai. We collected data of demographic characteristics (age and gender) and biological parameters, including complete blood count with differential count (CBC/DC), C-reactive protein (CRP), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alanine aminotransferase (ALT). We did not include erythrocyte sedimentation rate, albumin, and urinalysis, which are among the laboratory testing for KD suggested by the AHA [5] because they were not routinely tested in FC at our PED. This study was approved by the Chang Gung Medical Foundation’s Institutional Review Board (IRB number:201801163B0).

Statistical analysis

For continuous variables, we adopted independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test to compare differences between the KD and FC groups with correspondence to the normality test. We applied the chi-squared test (or Fisher’s exact test) to analyze the discrete variables. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to calculate the cutoff values in different variables to predict KD. The best possible cut-off value was indicated by the highest Youden’s Index. Logistic regression models with univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify potential independent predictors for KD. We carried out statistical analysis using SPSS statistical software for Windows version 22 (SPSS for Windows, version 22; SPSS, IL, U.S.A.). A value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Analysis process

We enrolled patients with complete data to construct the model. First, we used the ROC curve to select the candidate variables from the biological parameters with significance of area under the curve (AUC) greater than 0.6 or less than 0.4. Then an appropriate cutoff point of each candidate variable was calculated using Youden’s index. Second, we divided data into two disjointed data sets: the modeling set contained 83.3% (5/6) of all cases and the testing set contained 16.7% (1/6) of all cases in order to construct the model and validate it by randomization (uniform random and sorting with MATLAB 2015b), respectively. To construct the model, we used the logistic regression model with univariate and multivariate analyses to identify potential independent predictors and then generated the candidate score system based on the estimated coefficients, which we rounded off. We randomly performed five-fold cross-validation to determine the best score system with the highest prediction rate (sensitivity plus specificity). The cutoff point of the score system was also calculated using the ROC curve and Youden’s index. Fig 1 shows the workflow for analysis. We also used two other independent KD cohorts from different hospitals (Baoan Maternal and Child Health Hospital in China, N = 170, and Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan, N = 103, data accessed by X Liu and K-P Weng, respectively, and with the same period of our KD group of 2009 to 2017) for final verification.

Fig 1. Flow chart of this study.

Fig 1

KD: Kawasaki disease, FC: febrile children.

Results

Patients’ characteristics

In this study, we enrolled 6,310 FC and 485 KD patients, including 358 complete KD and 127 incomplete KD. Among these 6,795 participants, 400 KD and 5,000 FC formed our modeling set (N = 5,400) and 85 KD and 1,310 FC formed our validation set (N = 1,395). The basic demographics and biological data in both groups are listed in Table 1. Except for the blood parameter of AST, we observed significant differences between KD and FC in complete blood count, ALT, and CRP.

Table 1. Basic characteristics between controls and Kawasaki disease.

Variable Controls (N = 6310) Kawasaki disease (N = 485) Effect size* p-value
Gender (male) 3467 (54.9%) 285 (58.8%) 0.095 0.103
Age (year) 1.96±1.36 1.91±1.63 0.036 0.001
WBC (1000/μL) 11.36±5.94 13.17±4.67 0.309 <0.001
RBC (million/μL) 4.42±0.48 4.28±0.43 0.294 <0.001
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 11.94±1.24 11.33±5.46 0.324 <0.001
MCV (fL) 80.20±5.41 78.28±5.44 0.355 <0.001
MCH (pg/cell) 27.13±2.02 26.06±2.26 0.525 <0.001
MCHC (gHb/dL) 33.81±0.89 33.20±1.88 0.614 <0.001
Platelets (1000/μL) 273.52±105.92 353.43±138.49 0.736 <0.001
Segment (%) 55.09±18.00 57.62±16.10 0.142 0.004
Lymphocyte (%) 34.19±16.62 31.71±14.78 0.150 0.004
Monocyte (%) 8.78±4.03 6.08±2.96 0.681 <0.001
Eosinophil (%) 0.95±1.43 3.13±3.13 1.353 <0.001
Basophil (%) 0.25±0.32 0.22±0.32 0.094 0.001
CRP (mg/L) 35.11±52.22 77.88±68.04 0.799 <0.001
AST (U/L) 41.11±42.10 65.26±85.88 0.518 0.805
ALT (U/L) 23.48±33.33 74.80±104.34 1.207 <0.001

* Effect size: Cohen’s h for category variables, Cohen’s d for continuous variables.

Parameters for distinguishing KD and FC

Fig 2 and Table 2 show the ROC curve plot and the selected candidate parameters with AUC and the appropriate cutoff points, respectively. We initially obtained the five increased parameters of white blood cells, platelets, eosinophil, ALT, and CRP, as well as the five decreased parameters of red blood cell, hemoglobin, MCH, MCHC, and monocyte, between KD and FC. Thereafter, we used a logistic regression model with univariate and multivariate analyses to identify the important predictors for KD. We then gave each significant predictor an individual score based on the estimated coefficients with rounding off (Table 3). In the end, we obtained these eight independent predictors (platelets, eosinophil, ALT, CRP, hemoglobin, MCH, MCHC, and monocyte) for the logistic regression model to generate the candidate score system. In this score system, the top three scores were eosinophil>1.5% (7), ALT>30 U/L (6), and CRP>25 mg/L (6).

Fig 2. Receiver operating characteristic curve plot and the selected candidate parameters.

Fig 2

We obtained the five increased parameters of white blood cells, platelets, eosinophil, ALT, and CRP, as well as the five decreased parameters of red blood cell, hemoglobin, MCH, MCHC, and monocyte, between Kawasaki disease and febrile children.

Table 2. Area under the curve and cutoff points for candidate variables.

AUC (p-value) Youden’s index (cutoff point) Candidate cutoff point
WBC (1000/μL) 0.629 (<0.001) 0.266 (9.35) >10
Platelets(1000/μL) 0.692 (<0.001) 0.298 (281.5) >280
Eosinophil (%) 0.773 (<0.001) 0.443 (1.35) >1.5
ALT (U/L) 0.741 (<0.001) 0.408 (29.5) >30
CRP (mg/L) 0.721 (<0.001) 0.403 (24.25) >25
RBC (million/μL) 0.392 (<0.001) 0.176 (4.425) <4.5
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 0.306 (<0.001) 0.290 (11.75) <12
MCH (pg/cell) 0.376 (<0.001) 0.198 (26.75) <27
MCHC (gHb/dL) 0.345 (<0.001) 0.219 (33.25) <33
Monocyte (%) 0.274 (<0.001) 0.359 (6.85) <7

>indicates Kawasaki disease higher than controls; < indicates Kawasaki disease lower than controls.

Table 3. Logistic regression analysis and final score system.

Univariate Multivariate Score
Variable Est. (95%C.I.) p-value Est. (95%C.I.) p-value
Gender (male) 1.146 (0.910–1.443) 0.248 -- -- --
Age (year) 0.961 (0.883–1.044) 0.345 -- -- --
WBC (1000/μL) 2.993 (2.304–3.888) <0.001 -- 0.130 --
Platelets>280 (1000/μL) 3.506 (2.741–4.484) <0.001 1.835 (1.363–2.470) <0.001 2
Eosinophil >1.5% 6.673 (5.252–8.478) <0.001 6.744 (5.040–9.023) <0.001 7
ALT>30 (U/L) 7.299 (5.748–9.268) <0.001 5.776 (4.325–7.712) <0.001 6
CRP>25 (mg/L) 5.277 (4.048–6.881) <0.001 5.878 (4.305–8.026) <0.001 6
RBC<4.5 (million/μL) 1.905 (1.494–2.429) <0.001 -- 0.508 --
Hemoglobin<12 (g/dL) 3.138 (2.418–4.072) <0.001 1.499 (1.090–2.060) 0.013 1
MCH<27 (pg/cell) 2.116 (1.663–2.692) <0.001 1.794 (1.328–2.424) <0.001 2
MCHC<33 (gHb/dL) 2.614 (2.028–3.368) <0.001 1.547 (1.104–2.168) 0.011 2
Monocyte <7 (%) 4.569 (3.568–5.850) <0.001 4.163 (3.125–5.545) <0.001 4
Total score 30

Performance of our classification model

We randomly performed five-fold cross-validation to determine the best score system with the greatest prediction rate (sensitivity plus specificity). The cutoff point of the score system was also calculated using the ROC curve with Youden’s index. The mean of c-index, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for training and the validation sets of five-fold cross-validation were 0.894, 0.766, 0.875, and 0.867 and 0.891, 0.755, 0.876, and 0.867, respectively. Finally, we found that a score of 14 had the best value of sensitivity plus specificity prediction rate for KD. The c-index, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the testing set were 0.907, 0.824, 0.839, and 0.838, respectively. Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for these 6,310 FC and 485 KD subjects were 0.798, 0.847, and 0.844, respectively (Table 4). The sensitivity of detecting complete KD and incomplete KD was 0.804 and 0.780, respectively.

Table 4. Diagnostic performance with final score system in 6,310 FC and 485 KD.

Sensitivity Specificity Accuracy LR(+) LR(-)
Training set 0.766 0.875 0.867 5 0.26
Validation set 0.755 0.876 0.867 6.49 0.17
Testing set 0.824 0.839 0.838 5.11 0.21
All 0.798 0.847 0.844 5.22 0.24

LR: likelihood ratio.

As we know, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) are sensitive to the proportion of the sample size (the proportion between the KD and FC groups, Table 5).Therefore, we decided to use another assessment criterion that was not affected by proportion, that is, likelihood ratio (LR), to evaluate the score system. Here, our score system has at least LR(+) = 5.22 (moderate evidence to rule in KD) and LR(-) = 0.24 (weak evidence to rule in FC) (Table 4).

Table 5. Prevalence of KD and performance of score system.

Prevalence of KD P(KD|+) P(FC|-)
485/6795a 28.6% 98.2%
1/50 9.6% 99.5%
1/100 5.0% 99.8%
1/1,000 0.5% 99.98%

a indicates our patients; FC: febrile children; KD: Kawasaki disease.

+: Positive prediction by score system.

-: Negative prediction by score system.

Verification of two independent KD cohorts

To test the performance of this scoring classification model, we enrolled two independent KD cohorts from two different institutes and different countries (103 KD patients from Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan and 170 KD patients from Baoan Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Shenzhen, China). Given the specified parameters, the classification model had a 0.806 (83/103) and 0.765 (130/170) sensitivity, respectively. Altogether, it had a 0.780 (213/273) sensitivity, which is compatible with the performance of this model.

Discussion

This study found that our score system in a large and diverse cohort of febrile children allowed for rapid discovery of patients with KD. Routine blood measurements of CBC/DC, CRP, and other isolated parameters have a poor ability to differentiate KD from young FC. Of greater importance, without subjective clinical signs, our findings demonstrate that combining the values of platelets, eosinophil, ALT, CRP, hemoglobin, MCH, MCHC, and monocyte provides a good discriminatory ability for KD, while these parameters are also widely used in evaluating children with fever.

CRP levels have been previously recognized for their ability to identify or indicate febrile children with bacterial infection [17]. In our previous study of toll-like receptors in KD, we showed remarkable activation of toll-like receptor1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9, which is in line with a bacterial inflammatory response. Based on the results of this study, we also demonstrated that CRP levels are an important indicator for KD. In addition to standard clinical criteria [18], anemia is the most common clinical feature in KD patients and is thought to prolong the duration of active inflammation [19, 20]. Hemoglobin levels have also been shown to have the largest diagnostic differential between KD and FC [21] and to serve as a useful marker for differentiating KD shock syndrome from toxic shock syndrome in a pediatric intensive care unit [22]. In our study of these eight parameters, we also identified three parameters related to hemoglobin (Hb, MCH, MCHC) that decrease in KD patients. Hepcidin, which is encoded by the HAMP gene, is a well-known element of the inflammation-associated anemia mechanism [23]. In our previous studies, we have demonstrated that HAMP promoter hypomethylation upregulates hepcidin expression in KD patients [13, 24, 25]. The remarkable upregulation of hepcidin can induce transient anemia and hypoferremia in the acute inflammatory phase of KD [26], which is consistent with lower Hb, MCH, and MCHC in patients with KD.

KD patients experience a variety of non-specific clinical features, including gallbladder hydrops and impaired liver and function panel [2630]. Various studies have shown that higher AST and ALT levels and lower albumin levels were correlated with IVIG treatment resistance and coronary artery lesion formation [3133]. In this study, we discovered that ALT is more specific than AST in differentiating KD from febrile controls. In fact, increased gamma glutamyl transferase [30] and decreased albumin levels are common features in KD [34]; however; both items are not always collected from febrile children.

Eosinophils are potent effector cells implicated in allergic responses and helminth infections [35]. Eosinophils play the most important role in this score system, with the highest score of 7 out of a total score of 30. One recent study demonstrated that Z-score corrected eosinophil percentage was elevated in the acute phase of KD [36]. In addition to the acute phase, higher eosinophil percentage was also found in the convalescent phase following IVIG treatment [37]. From our previous reports, we not only found increased eosinophils in KD before IVIG treatment, but also discovered that it was even higher after IVIG treatment [38, 39]. Higher eosinophil levels in KD indicated a good treatment response of IVIG and lower CAL formation. The KD patients had higher eosinophil levels both before and after IVIG therapy than the enterovirus patients, which was a T helper 2 immune response [40]. According to previous reports, eosinophils are a heterogeneous cell population and have different characteristics based on their site of residence. Taken altogether, the role of anti-inflammatory eosinophils as protective cells may play a more important role in KD than inflammatory eosinophils.

Monocytes also play an important role in this model. Persistent monocytosis after IVIG correlated with the development of CAL in KD. Lin et al. [41] observed augmented toll-like receptors (TLR) 2 expression on monocytes in both KD and a mouse model of coronary arteritis. Multiomics analyses identified epigenetic modulation of the S100A gene family in KD and their significant involvement in neutrophil transendothelial migration [42]. Armaroli et al. reported monocyte-derived interleukin-1β as the driver of S100A12-induced sterile inflammatory activation of human coronary artery endothelial cells in KD [43]. This finding highlights the interaction between monocytes and other cell populations in KD, as well as the importance of monocytes.

Neural network analysis has been used widely in medical fields to build predictive model. We have tried neural network analysis with the same setting: 83.3% of all cases for the training model and tuning the parameters of hidden layers and nodes. The neural network result had higher specificity (0.950) but much lower sensitivity (0.429) for KD diagnosis. In this study, we suggested a new score system without subjective clinical criteria in order to screen possible KD from FC. Neural network analysis is an effective predictive tool, but a score system may be easier to use in clinical settings.

IVIG resistance is another concern for pediatricians treating patients with KD. Therefore, we also tried to use our score model to predict IVIG resistance, but the accuracy was low. Although children with KD had higher score than FC (19.09 ± 6.29 vs. 8.41±5.30, p<0.001), there was no significant difference of scores between children with and without IVIG resistance (21.08 ± 7.12 vs. 19.15 ± 6.19, p = 0.205). This may be because our score system was not built up according to the treatment effect of IVIG and lacks some significant parameters that are important in predicting IVIG resistance, such as serum albumin and sodium levels [33, 44].

Early diagnosis of KD is required to ensure timely IVIG treatment and prevent adverse outcomes [5]. Ling et al. proposed a classification tool for differentiating KD from other febrile illnesses using both subjective clinical and objective laboratory test variables [10, 15]. However, first-line physicians in PED may not be so familiar with the subjective clinical manifestations of KD. On the other hand, since physicians know the clinical criteria of KD, they would be aware of the differential diagnosis of KD when evaluating children with fever in PED. In our findings, we proposed a novel scoring model with good ability to discriminate KD using only objective laboratory tests that are commonly used in PED. For clinical application, our novel scoring model may be integrated into the laboratory reporting system. When physicians check the laboratory test results, the application also provides the score to help first-line physicians be aware of the possibility of KD when evaluating children with fever in PED.

The current study has some limitations. First, we only included children aged under five years old to form our FC group. Application of the model in distinguishing KD from FC in children older than 5 years old warrants further study. Second, all the children in our modeling set, testing set, and validation set are Asian. Additional studies involving children of different countries and races are needed to assess the generalizability. Third, some other important laboratory tests, such as urinalysis, serum sodium and albumin levels, erythrocyte sedimentation, etc., which are commonly used in evaluating KD, were not included in our model because they were not routinely tested in our FC. However, these tests may play a crucial role in diagnosing KD.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate a novel score system that combines ordinary laboratory data to achieve a good discriminatory ability for differentiating KD from other non-KD children with fever. The utilization of this novel score system can help physicians make early discovery of potential KD patients and may even prevent coronary artery lesions.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Clinical Trial Center, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan for its statistical help.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study received funding from the following grants: MOST 108-2314-B-182 -037 -MY3 and MOST 103-2410-H-264-004 from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan and 8E0212 from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan. Although these institutes provided financial support, they had no influence on the way in which we collected, analyzed, or interpreted the data or wrote this manuscript.

References

  • 1.Massin MM, Montesanti J, Gerard P, Lepage P. Spectrum and frequency of illness presenting to a pediatric emergency department. Acta Clin Belg. 2006;61(4):161–5. Epub 2006/11/10. 10.1179/acb.2006.027 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Excellence NIfHaC. Feverish Illness in Children: Assessment and Initial Management in Children Younger Than 5 Years (Clinical guideline CG160.). 2013. [PubMed]
  • 3.Kawasaki T, Kosaki F, Okawa S, Shigematsu I, Yanagawa H. A new infantile acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome (MLNS) prevailing in Japan. Pediatrics. 1974;54(3):271–6. Epub 1974/09/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wang CL, Wu YT, Liu CA, Kuo HC, Yang KD. Kawasaki disease: infection, immunity and genetics. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24(11):998–1004. Epub 2005/11/12. 10.1097/01.inf.0000183786.70519.fa . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.McCrindle BW, Rowley AH, Newburger JW, Burns JC, Bolger AF, Gewitz M, et al. Diagnosis, Treatment, and Long-Term Management of Kawasaki Disease: A Scientific Statement for Health Professionals From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;135(17):e927–e99. Epub 2017/03/31. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000484 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Liang CD, Kuo HC, Yang KD, Wang CL, Ko SF. Coronary artery fistula associated with Kawasaki disease. Am Heart J. 2009;157(3):584–8. Epub 2009/03/03. 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.11.020 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Newburger JW, Takahashi M, Beiser AS, Burns JC, Bastian J, Chung KJ, et al. A single intravenous infusion of gamma globulin as compared with four infusions in the treatment of acute Kawasaki syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(23):1633–9. Epub 1991/06/06. 10.1056/NEJM199106063242305 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Durongpisitkul K, Gururaj VJ, Park JM, Martin CF. The prevention of coronary artery aneurysm in Kawasaki disease: a meta-analysis on the efficacy of aspirin and immunoglobulin treatment. Pediatrics. 1995;96(6):1057–61. Epub 1995/12/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Oates-Whitehead RM, Baumer JH, Haines L, Love S, Maconochie IK, Gupta A, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of Kawasaki disease in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD004000 Epub 2003/10/30. 10.1002/14651858.CD004000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hao S, Jin B, Tan Z, Li Z, Ji J, Hu G, et al. A Classification Tool for Differentiation of Kawasaki Disease from Other Febrile Illnesses. J Pediatr. 2016;176:114–20 e8. Epub 2016/06/28. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.05.060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Liu YC, Lin MT, Wang JK, Wu MH. State-of-the-art acute phase management of Kawasaki disease after 2017 scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Pediatr Neonatol. 2018;59(6):543–52. Epub 2018/05/01. 10.1016/j.pedneo.2018.03.005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kuo HC, Lo CC, Lin PX, Kao CC, Huang YH, Lin BS. Wireless optical monitoring system identifies limb induration characteristics in patients with Kawasaki disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;142(2):710–1. Epub 2018/05/08. 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.04.018 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Huang YH, Kuo HC, Li SC, Cai XY, Liu SF, Kuo HC. HAMP promoter hypomethylation and increased hepcidin levels as biomarkers for Kawasaki disease. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2018;117:82–7. Epub 2018/03/05. 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2018.02.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kuo HC, Huang YH, Chung FH, Chen PC, Sung TC, Chen YW, et al. Antibody Profiling of Kawasaki Disease Using Escherichia coli Proteome Microarrays. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2018;17(3):472–81. Epub 2017/12/17. 10.1074/mcp.RA117.000198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ling XB, Kanegaye JT, Ji J, Peng S, Sato Y, Tremoulet A, et al. Point-of-care differentiation of Kawasaki disease from other febrile illnesses. J Pediatr. 2013;162(1):183–8 e3. Epub 2012/07/24. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.06.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Huang YH, Lin KM, Ho SC, Yan JH, Lo MH, Kuo HC. Increased Incidence of Kawasaki Disease in Taiwan in Recent Years: A 15 Years Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study. Front Pediatr. 2019;7:121 Epub 2019/04/16. 10.3389/fped.2019.00121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chiu IM, Huang LC, Chen IL, Tang KS, Huang YH. Diagnostic values of C-reactive protein and complete blood cell to identify invasive bacterial infection in young febrile infants. Pediatr Neonatol. 2019;60(2):197–200. Epub 2018/08/10. 10.1016/j.pedneo.2018.06.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Newburger JW, Takahashi M, Gerber MA, Gewitz MH, Tani LY, Burns JC, et al. Diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management of Kawasaki disease: a statement for health professionals from the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, American Heart Association. Circulation. 2004;110(17):2747–71. Epub 2004/10/27. 110/17/2747 [pii] 10.1161/01.CIR.0000145143.19711.78 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Alves NR, Magalhaes CM, Almeida Rde F, Santos RC, Gandolfi L, Pratesi R. Prospective study of Kawasaki disease complications: review of 115 cases. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2011;57(3):295–300. Epub 2011/06/22. S0104-42302011000300012 [pii]. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kuo HC, Wang CL, Liang CD, Yu HR, Chen HH, Wang L, et al. Persistent monocytosis after intravenous immunoglobulin therapy correlated with the development of coronary artery lesions in patients with Kawasaki disease. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2007;40(5):395–400. Epub 2007/10/13. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ling XB, Lau K, Kanegaye JT, Pan Z, Peng S, Ji J, et al. A diagnostic algorithm combining clinical and molecular data distinguishes Kawasaki disease from other febrile illnesses. BMC medicine. 2011;9:130 10.1186/1741-7015-9-130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lin YJ, Cheng MC, Lo MH, Chien SJ. Early Differentiation of Kawasaki Disease Shock Syndrome and Toxic Shock Syndrome in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;34(11):1163–7. 10.1097/INF.0000000000000852 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Girelli D, Nemeth E, Swinkels DW. Hepcidin in the diagnosis of iron disorders. Blood. 2016;127(23):2809–13. 10.1182/blood-2015-12-639112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kuo HC, Yang YL, Chuang JH, Tiao MM, Yu HR, Huang LT, et al. Inflammation-induced hepcidin is associated with the development of anemia and coronary artery lesions in Kawasaki disease. Journal of clinical immunology. 2012;32(4):746–52. 10.1007/s10875-012-9668-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Huang YH, Yang KD, Hsu YW, Lu HF, Wong HS, Yu HR, et al. Correlation of HAMP gene polymorphisms and expression with the susceptibility and length of hospital stays in Taiwanese children with Kawasaki disease. Oncotarget. 2017;8(31):51859–68. Epub 2017/09/09. 10.18632/oncotarget.17700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Huang YH, Kuo HC, Huang FC, Yu HR, Hsieh KS, Yang YL, et al. Hepcidin-Induced Iron Deficiency Is Related to Transient Anemia and Hypoferremia in Kawasaki Disease Patients. International journal of molecular sciences. 2016;17(5). 10.3390/ijms17050715 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Huang YH, Hsu YW, Lu HF, Wong HS, Yu HR, Kuo HC, et al. Interferon-gamma Genetic Polymorphism and Expression in Kawasaki Disease. Medicine. 2016;95(17):e3501 10.1097/MD.0000000000003501 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Eladawy M, Dominguez SR, Anderson MS, Glode MP. Abnormal liver panel in acute kawasaki disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2011;30(2):141–4. Epub 2010/09/24. 10.1097/INF.0b013e3181f6fe2a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liu L, Yin W, Wang R, Sun D, He X, Ding Y. The prognostic role of abnormal liver function in IVIG unresponsiveness in Kawasaki disease: a meta-analysis. Inflamm Res. 2016;65(2):161–8. Epub 2015/12/10. 10.1007/s00011-015-0900-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ting EC, Capparelli EV, Billman GF, Lavine JE, Matsubara T, Burns JC. Elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase concentrations in patients with acute Kawasaki disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998;17(5):431–2. Epub 1998/06/05. 10.1097/00006454-199805000-00020 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Baek JY, Song MS. Meta-analysis of factors predicting resistance to intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in patients with Kawasaki disease. Korean journal of pediatrics. 2016;59(2):80–90. 10.3345/kjp.2016.59.2.80 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yilmazer MM, Oner T, Gokalp S, Doksoz O, Guven B, Vupa Cilengiroglu O, et al. Risk factors for persistence of coronary artery abnormalities in Turkish children with Kawasaki disease. The Turkish journal of pediatrics. 2015;57(3):248–53. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kuo HC, Liang CD, Wang CL, Yu HR, Hwang KP, Yang KD. Serum albumin level predicts initial intravenous immunoglobulin treatment failure in Kawasaki disease. Acta Paediatr. 2010;99(10):1578–83. Epub 2010/05/25. 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2010.01875.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Li X, Chen Y, Tang Y, Ding Y, Xu Q, Sun L, et al. Predictors of intravenous immunoglobulin-resistant Kawasaki disease in children: a meta-analysis of 4442 cases. Eur J Pediatr. 2018;177(8):1279–92. Epub 2018/06/28. 10.1007/s00431-018-3182-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yang BG, Seoh JY, Jang MH. Regulatory Eosinophils in Inflammation and Metabolic Disorders. Immune network. 2017;17(1):41–7. 10.4110/in.2017.17.1.41 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kwak JH, Lee J, Ha KS. Significance of Differential Characteristics in Infantile Kawasaki Disease. Korean Circ J. 2019;49(8):755–65. Epub 2019/05/11. 10.4070/kcj.2018.0434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tremoulet AH, Jain S, Chandrasekar D, Sun X, Sato Y, Burns JC. Evolution of laboratory values in patients with Kawasaki disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2011;30(12):1022–6. Epub 2011/08/06. 10.1097/INF.0b013e31822d4f56 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kuo HC, Yang KD, Liang CD, Bong CN, Yu HR, Wang L, et al. The relationship of eosinophilia to intravenous immunoglobulin treatment failure in Kawasaki disease. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2007;18(4):354–9. Epub 2007/06/23. PAI516 [pii] 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2007.00516.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kuo HC, Wang CL, Liang CD, Yu HR, Huang CF, Wang L, et al. Association of lower eosinophil-related T helper 2 (Th2) cytokines with coronary artery lesions in Kawasaki disease. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2009;20(3):266–72. Epub 2009/05/15. PAI779 [pii] 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2008.00779.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lin LY, Yang TH, Lin YJ, Yu HR, Yang KD, Huang YC, et al. Comparison of the Laboratory Data Between Kawasaki Disease and Enterovirus After Intravenous Immunoglobulin Treatment. Pediatr Cardiol. 2012. Epub 2012/03/27. 10.1007/s00246-012-0293-9 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lin IC, Kuo H-C, Lin Y-J, Wang F-S, Wang L, Huang S-C, et al. Augmented TLR2 expression on monocytes in both human Kawasaki disease and a mouse model of coronary arteritis. PloS one. 2012;7(6). 10.1371/journal.pone.0038635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Huang LH, Kuo HC, Pan CT, Lin YS, Huang YH, Li SC. Multiomics analyses identified epigenetic modulation of the S100A gene family in Kawasaki disease and their significant involvement in neutrophil transendothelial migration. Clin Epigenetics. 2018;10(1):135 Epub 2018/11/02. 10.1186/s13148-018-0557-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Armaroli G, Verweyen E, Pretzer C, Kessel K, Hirono K, Ichida F, et al. Monocyte-Derived Interleukin-1beta As the Driver of S100A12-Induced Sterile Inflammatory Activation of Human Coronary Artery Endothelial Cells: Implications for the Pathogenesis of Kawasaki Disease. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(5):792–804. 10.1002/art.40784 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kobayashi T, Inoue Y, Takeuchi K, Okada Y, Tamura K, Tomomasa T, et al. Prediction of intravenous immunoglobulin unresponsiveness in patients with Kawasaki disease. Circulation. 2006;113(22):2606–12. Epub 2006/06/01. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.592865 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Colin Johnson

23 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-24219

A novel score system of blood tests in prediction Kawasaki disease from febrile children

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kuo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Specifically, both reviewers expressed concerns over how the manuscript defined the difference between complete and incomplete Kawasaki disease, and had several questions related to the analysis of the data. Please submit a revised manuscript with a rebuttal to each of the reviewers concerns by Nov 07 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org.

When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Colin Johnson, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please address the following:

- Please refer to any post-hoc corrections to correct for multiple comparisons during your statistical analyses. If these were not performed please justify the reasons. Please refer to our statistical reporting guidelines for assistance (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting).

- Please ensure you have thoroughly discussed any potential limitations of this study within the Discussion section, including the potential impact of confounding factors.

- In your Methods section please include the dates upon which authors accessed the clinical data sources used in this study.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author(s) described a novel score system of blood tests to differentiate Kawasaki disease from febrile children. Although this paper might have some clinical impacts on medical staffs in the pediatric emergency departments, there are many questions to be solved in the technical and scientific points of view.

Technical comments:

1. To evaluate the goodness of statistical model in terms of prediction, c-index is more popular than accuracy. Thus, it is necessary to add the data of c-index in addition to sensitivity, specificity and accuracy throughout this paper.

2. In Table 1, the author described a lot of P values of P<0.001, which is basically due to the large number of patients in this study. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate the effect size such as Cohen’s d to select the useful parameters for the multivariate analyses.

3. In Table 2, the author used AUC of greater than 0.6 or less than 0.4. This seems to be too loose to evaluate the prediction ability of the statistical models. Usually, it should be greater than 0.7 or less than 0.3. Thus, it is necessary to correct Table 3 for selecting useful parameters. If necessary, the results using both of the criteria should be shown to discuss which is better for prediction of Kawasaki disease by using the model and verification samples. This might also contribute to simplify the score system presented in this paper.

4. What parameters in Table 3 were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis? What about age and gender? They were essential for the analysis. I wonder if all other laboratory data were included in the multivariate analyses or not.

5. Recently, we often found the paper using the neural network analysis in the medical journals. Thus, the reviewer thought it necessary to add the neural network analysis in addition to the multivariate logistic regression analysis to compare the respective and also combined data.

Scientific Comments:

1. It is necessary to describe precisely the definitions for the incomplete Kawasaki disease in this paper. It is because all of the readers for PLOS ONE did not understand the difference between complete and incomplete Kawasaki disease.

2. It is well known that coronary artery lesions are sometimes observed in patients with incomplete Kawasaki disease, which suggested the importance of correct discrimination of incomplete Kawasaki disease from the control FC groups. In this paper, only the data of sensitivity was shown for the complete and incomplete Kawasaki disease respectively using the model data. Thus, it is preferable for the author to show the same analysis using verification data. This should contain the values of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and c-index.

3. The reviewer also had a question whether the patient with suspected Kawasaki disease, who showed only no less than two sign and symptoms, were excluded correctly in the control FC groups.

4. Moreover, the reviewer also had a question if this model is applicable to discriminate IVIG resistance in patients with Kawasaki disease. It is because this is a very important point for doctors working in the pediatric emergency department.

5. When did the author(s) obtain the verification data? It is probably different from the model data of 2009 to 2017. It should be described in the section of study population.

Minor comments:

1. As the author indicated, this paper investigated only patients aged less than five years old. However, in the field of Kawasaki disease, incomplete cases aged more than 5 years old were often reported to have coronary artery lesions. Thus, the applicable age for the presented program should be described in the limitation of this paper.

2. Inappropriate usage of technical term was observed. For example, GPT in Table 3, while AST in the discussion. Probably, the latter is to be appropriate in the recent medical journal.

Reviewer #2: I uploaded my recommendations.

This is a very interesting paper, that if it could be reproduce in children from all races and countries, It could help practitioners from the Emergency Department who are not commonly aware of Kawasaki disease recognize this disease from other febrile illness and start an early IVIG treatment

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: A novel score system of blood tests in prediction Kawasaki disease from febrile children.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 22;16(1):e0244721. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244721.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Nov 2020

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The author(s) described a novel score system of blood tests to differentiate Kawasaki disease from febrile children. Although this paper might have some clinical impacts on medical staffs in the pediatric emergency departments, there are many questions to be solved in the technical and scientific points of view.

Technical comments:

1. To evaluate the goodness of statistical model in terms of prediction, c-index is more popular than accuracy. Thus, it is necessary to add the data of c-index in addition to sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy throughout this paper.

Reply: Thanks for your kindly reminder. We have added the c-index in our results. (In Table 1 and Line 188 – 192)

2. In Table 1, the author described a lot of P values of P<0.001, which is basically due to the large number of patients in this study. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate the effect size such as Cohen’s d to select the useful parameters for the multivariate analyses.

Reply: Thanks for your kindly suggestion. We fully agree with your point of view and have added effect size in Table 1 and corrected some values. Please see Table 1.

3. In Table 2, the author used AUC of greater than 0.6 or less than 0.4. This seems to be too loose to evaluate the prediction ability of the statistical models. Usually, it should be greater than 0.7 or less than 0.3. Thus, it is necessary to correct Table 3 for selecting useful parameters. If necessary, the results using both of the criteria should be shown to discuss which is better for prediction of Kawasaki disease by using the model and verification samples. This might also contribute to simplify the score system presented in this paper.

Reply: Thanks for your kindly suggestion. We have used strict criterion (AUC greater than 0.7 or less than 0.3) to select the candidate markers before modeling, the performance of update model is not better than the original model. The mean of c-index, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for training and validation sets of five-fold cross-validation were 0.873, 0.723, 0.867, and 0.860 and 0.872, 0.720, 0.869, and 0.861, respectively. We prefer maintaining original criterion over using strict criterion.

4. What parameters in Table 3 were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis? What about age and gender? They were essential for the analysis. I wonder if all other laboratory data were included in the multivariate analyses or not.

Reply: Thanks for your kindly reminder. We have renewed the Table 3 to contain the result of age and gender. In our procedure of analysis, all candidate parameters from selecting stage were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Please see Table 3.

5. Recently, we often found the paper using the neural network analysis in the medical journals. Thus, the reviewer thought it necessary to add the neural network analysis in addition to the multivariate logistic regression analysis to compare the respective and also combined data.

Reply: Thanks for your kindly suggestion. We apply the IBM SPSS “Neural Networks” for neural network analysis. Here we use the same setting: 83.3% of all cases for training model and tuning the parameters of hidden layer and nodes; 16.7% of all cases for testing the performance of out-of-sample. The best model is contained 1 hidden layer with 4 nodes. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for training and testing sets were 0.494, 0.987, and 0.950 and 0.429, 0.985, and 0.958, respectively. This result had higher specificity (for febrile diagnosis) and accuracy (92.8% febrile children) but significantly low sensitivity for KD diagnosis (less than 50%). In this study, we suggested a new score system without subjective clinical criteria in order to screen possible KD from FC. Neural network analysis is an effective predictive tool, but a score system may be easier to use in clinical settings.

We have added some discussion about neural networks in the manuscript. Please refer to Line 272 – 277.

Scientific Comments:

1. It is necessary to describe precisely the definitions for the incomplete Kawasaki disease in this paper. It is because all of the readers for PLOS ONE did not understand the difference between complete and incomplete Kawasaki disease.

Reply: Thanks for your kindly suggestion. We have added the definitions of complete/incomplete Kawasaki disease in manuscript. Please refer to Line 104 – 116.

2. It is well known that coronary artery lesions are sometimes observed in patients with incomplete Kawasaki disease, which suggested the importance of correct discrimination of incomplete Kawasaki disease from the control FC groups. In this paper, only the data of sensitivity was shown for the complete and incomplete Kawasaki disease respectively using the model data. Thus, it is preferable for the author to show the same analysis using verification data. This should contain the values of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and c-index.

Reply: Thanks for your kindly reminder. We have added the c-index in the results. Please see lines 188 – 192.

3. The reviewer also had a question whether the patient with suspected Kawasaki disease, who showed only no less than two sign and symptoms, were excluded correctly in the control FC groups.

Reply: Thanks for your kindly reminder. We follow the guideline to diagnose KD and we excluded any suspected KD children from FC group. We have revised our manuscript in Line 119 – 122:

These controls presented to the PED of Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan with fever during the period of January 2009 through December 2015. Children suspected of having KD were excluded from the FC group. The clinical data sources of the control group were accessed by Prof. Y-H Huang and Dr. C-M Tsai.

4. Moreover, the reviewer also had a question if this model is applicable to discriminate IVIG resistance in patients with Kawasaki disease. It is because this is a very important point for doctors working in the pediatric emergency department.

Reply: We fully agree with the point of view in regarding discriminating IVIG resistance in patients with KD. However, the current model is focusing on helping physician to be aware of the differential diagnosis of KD.

We added some discussion in our manuscript: (Line 278 – 284 )

Although children with KD had higher score than FC (19.09 ± 6.29 vs. 8.41±5.30, p<0.001), there was no significant difference of scores between children with and without IVIG resistance (21.08 ± 7.12 vs. 19.15 ± 6.19, p=0.205). This may be because our score system was not built up according to the treatment effect of IVIG and lacks some significant parameters that are important in predicting IVIG resistance, such as serum albumin and sodium levels.

5. When did the author(s) obtain the verification data? It is probably different from the model data of 2009 to 2017. It should be described in the section of study population. The same ?

Reply: Thanks for your kindly reminder. We have added some information about these in our manuscript (Line 153 – 155):

We also used two other independent KD cohorts from different hospitals (Baoan Maternal and Child Health Hospital in China, N= 170, and Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan, N= 103, data accessed by X Liu and K-P Weng, respectively, and with the same period of our KD group of 2009 to 2017) for final verification.

Minor comments:

1. As the author indicated, this paper investigated only patients aged less than five years old. However, in the field of Kawasaki disease, incomplete cases aged more than 5 years old were often reported to have coronary artery lesions. Thus, the applicable age for the presented program should be described in the limitation of this paper.

Reply: Thanks for your kindly opinion. We have added one paragraph about the limitation of our current study. (Line 296 – 303)

The current study has some limitations. First, we only included children aged under five years old to form our FC group. Application of the model in distinguishing KD from FC in children older than 5 years old warrants further study. Second, all the children in our modeling set, testing set, and validation set are Asian. Additional studies involving children of different races are needed to assess the generalizability. Third, some other important laboratory tests, such as urinalysis, serum sodium and albumin levels, erythrocyte sedimentation, etc., which are commonly used in evaluating KD, were not included in our model because they were not routinely tested in our FC. However, these tests may play a crucial role in diagnosing KD

2. Inappropriate usage of technical term was observed. For example, GPT in Table 3, while AST in the discussion. Probably, the latter is to be appropriate in the recent medical journal.

Reply: Thanks for your kindly remind, we have corrected the usage of technical term.

Reviewer #2: I uploaded my recommendations.

This is a very interesting paper, that if it could be reproduce in children from all races and countries, It could help practitioners from the Emergency Department who are not commonly aware of Kawasaki disease recognize this disease from other febrile illness and start an early IVIG treatment

Commentaries.

The objective of the study is to establish which routine laboratory results taken in the emergency room in children with fever could be helpful in differentiating Kawasaki disease from other febrile illness.

Is well established that diagnosis of Kawasaki disease is based on clinical signs and symptoms and the laboratory results are more helpful when there are incomplete or atypical presentations of the disease. I think that it is very bold to try to make a diagnosis of Kawasaki disease without the use of clinical picture, although it will be very useful to add a tool to guide doctors in the emergency department think of Kawasaki disease.

Title

We all know that diagnosis of Kawasaki disease is based on clinical signs and symptoms, and the use of a construct based on routine laboratory results will be very helpful to diagnose the disease. The objective of the score is to select which patients are more likely to have Kawasaki disease based only on blood exams, so I think it is better to change “prediction” to “for differentiating” Kawasaki disease from febrile children.

Reply: We agree with the reviewer’s opinion and revised our title as: A novel score system of blood tests for differentiating Kawasaki disease from febrile children

Abstract

As per journal guidelines, abbreviations are not recommended to be included in the abstract.

Reply: Thanks for your friendly reminder. We have revised our abstract and abbreviations are not included.

Introduction

It is important to establish the difference between complete and incomplete Kawasaki disease. I suggest that you correct the definition of classical or complete Kawasaki disease. (Lines 77 to 80) and make the difference of incomplete Kawasaki disease (line 80 “or fever lasting more than ….)

Reply: Thanks for your kind reminder. We have revised the definition of complete/incomplete Kawasaki disease in our manuscript. (Line 104 – 116):

The diagnosis of complete KD is based on the presence of ≥ 5 days of fever and the presence of ≥ 4 of the 5 principal clinical features. These five features consist of the following: (1) erythema and cracking of lips, strawberry tongue, and/or erythema of oral and pharyngeal mucosa, (2) bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection without exudate, (3) rash: maculopapular, diffuse erythroderma, or erythema multiforme-like, (4) erythema and edema of the hands and feet in the acute phase and/or periungual desquamation in the subacute phase, and (5) cervical lymphadenopathy (≥1.5 cm diameter), usually unilateral. In the presence of ≥ 4 principal clinical criteria, particularly when redness and swelling of the hands and feet are present, a KD diagnosis may be made with only 4 days of fever. Children with fever ≥ 5 days and 2 or 3 compatible clinical criteria are then evaluated with additional laboratory tests. If these children had ≥3 supplemental laboratory criteria (anemia for age, platelet count ≥450,000 after the seventh day of fever, albumin ≤3.0 g/dL, elevated ALT level, WBC count ≥15,000/mm3, and ≥10 WBC/HPF on urinalysis) or a positive echocardiogram, a diagnosis of incomplete KD was made.

Statistical Analysis

Because the authors already have made all the analysis, they have to know which statistical tests were used and why they used it.

Reply: Thanks for your kind opinion.

Analysis process

I think this is the most important part of the paper, and according to the proposed methods it is accurate for evaluating the objectives of the study.

Reply: Thanks for your kind opinion.

Results

The number of patients included in the study is enough to make a good statistical analysis.

It is of note that in the univariate analysis (which one they finally used?) all except but one of the laboratory results used to compare Kawasaki disease patients with febrile patients had statistically significant differences.

Reply: Thank your for allowing us to explain more about our univariate analysis. First, we used the ROC curve to select the candidate variables and determined their cut-off point in predicting KD. Only the parameters with significance of area under the curve (AUC) greater than 0.6 or less than 0.4 were selected for further analysis with logistic regression. Therefore, only 10 parameters listed on Table 2 were finally used for logistic regression analysis (shown as Table 3).

Also of note, is that some of laboratory parameters that they use to try to differentiate KD from other febrile illness (eosinophil percentage. MCH, MCHC and monocyte percentage) have not been fully recognized as important in Kawasaki disease. And more important that after the multivariate analysis, that a higher eosinophil percentage is useful in recognizing KD. A z-score corrected elevated eosinophil percentage has been reported in the acute phase of Kawasaki disease has been recently reported by Kwak JH, Lee JH, Ha KS. Significance of differential characteristics in infantile Kawasaki disease. Korean Circ J 2019;49:755-765. And also in the convalescent phase after IVIG treatment. (Tremoulet AH, Jain S, Chanraseakar D, Sun X, Sato Y, Burns JC. Evolution of Laboratory values in patients with Kawasaki disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011;30:1022-1026).

List in discussion. But we want a set of straightforward data.

Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised and added these 2 references in our discussion to address the importance of eosinophil in children with KD. (Line 252 – 254)

Discussion

I think it is appropriate and discuss all the important findings of the proposed model.

Although the study has the limitation that it is performed only in children of Asian race, and it needs to be evaluated in children from other countries and races.

List in limitations.

Reply: We fully agree with your point of view. We have added this point to our limitations. (Line 298 – 300 ):

Second, all the children in our modeling set, testing set, and validation set are Asian. Additional studies involving children of different countries and races are needed to assess the generalizability.

References

The reference number 2 is incomplete

I suggest the author review the 2 references mentioned in the results review (Kwak and Tremoulet)

Reply: Thanks for your kind reminder. We have corrected the reference number 2 and added these 2 references. (references number 36 and 37)

This paper adds a new score to evaluate Kawasaki disease in the emergency room by doctors not used to diagnose the disease. It is worth publishing it with small corrections

Reply: Thanks for your friendly opinion.

Thank you.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewer 1 and 2.docx

Decision Letter 1

Colin Johnson

16 Dec 2020

A novel score system of blood tests for differentiating Kawasaki disease from febrile children

PONE-D-20-24219R1

Dear Dr. Kuo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Colin Johnson, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Colin Johnson

12 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-24219R1

A novel score system of blood tests for differentiating Kawasaki disease from febrile children

Dear Dr. Kuo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Colin Johnson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: A novel score system of blood tests in prediction Kawasaki disease from febrile children.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewer 1 and 2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES