Clinical Utility of a <i>Legionella pneumophila</i> Urinary Antigen Test in a Large University Teaching Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical utility of diagnosing Legionella pneumonia by urinary antigen testing (LPUAT) in a low prevalence centre. DESIGN: The results of LPUATs were abstracted and analyzed from the authors' laboratory information system. Medical records were reviewed in detail for all positive tests and a random sample of 50 negative tests. SETTING: The Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, a large university hospital complex. POPULATION STUDIED: Patients who were admitted from the emergency room with pneumonia or who had developed pneumonia in hospital and who had a LPUAT performed between April 1998 and October 2000. MAIN RESULTS: One thousand one hundred fifty-four tests were performed on 1007 patients. Seven patients had nine positive LPUATs. Three of these patients had confirmed Legionella pneumophila pneumonia. Three others had probable or possible L pneumophila pneumonia. There was one probable false positive. Six of the seven patients were already on empirical anti-L pneumophila therapy. Of the 50 negative tests reviewed in detail, 31 patients were on one of the antibiotics of choice for L pneumophila at the time the test was ordered; in 21 (68%) of these patients the negative result did not lead to a change in therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The cost to diagnose each case of Legionella pneumonia by LPUAT was approximately $5,770 and most patients were already on appropriate antibiotics. In patients with negative tests, antibiotics were often not changed in response to the test result. Rigorous screening of patients is required to increase pretest probability for LPUAT to be justified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".