Blood Cultures in Ambulatory Patients Who Are Discharged from Emergency with Community‐Acquired Pneumonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the factors that predict whether or not ambulatory patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) treated in an emergency room (ER) setting will have blood cultures drawn and the factors that predict a positive blood culture. METHODS: Prospective observational study of all patients with a diagnosis of CAP, as made by an ER physician, who presented to any of seven Edmonton-area ERs over a two-year period. RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-three (19.2%) of 4124 patients with CAP had blood cultures drawn. The site-specific blood culture rates ranged from 7.8% to 25% (P<0.001); 41 of 793 (5.1%) were positive. Streptococcus pneumoniae accounted for 58.5% of the isolates while Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli each accounted for 14.6%, or six patients each. Only two of the 24 patients with S pneumoniae bacteremia were subsequently admitted to hospital while all six of the patients with S aureus were admitted. Only one of the six patients with E coli bacteremia was treated at home. No factors were predictive of positive blood cultures on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are selective in ordering blood cultures on patients with ambulatory pneumonia who present to an ER, and the positivity rate of 5.1% is quite high. No factors are predictive of positive blood cultures on multivariate analysis, thus clinical judgment has to prevail in the decision to perform blood cultures. Breakthrough bacteremia can occur with microorganisms susceptible to the antibiotics that the patient is receiving.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".