A Comparison of Bacteremic Pneumococcal Pneumonia with Nonbacteremic Community‐Acquired Pneumonia of Any Etiology — Results from a Canadian Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia has not been the subject of a multicentre Canadian Study. OBJECTIVES: To compare bacteremic community-acquired Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia with nonbacteremic community-acquired pneumonia of any etiology. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at 15 centres in eight Canadian provinces from January 1996 to January 1998. RESULTS: Fifty-six of the 450 patients (12.4%) had one or more blood cultures positive for S pneumoniae. Compared with the 394 blood culture-negative patients, the bacteremic patients were younger (55.6 years versus 63.4 years; P=0.002). At presentation, bacteremic patients had a higher mean oral temperature (38.1+/-1.2 degrees C versus 37.7+/-1.2 degrees C; P=0.026), a higher pulse rate (108.4+/-22.1 beats/min versus 102.1+/-20.6 beats/min; P=0.033), a lower diastolic blood pressure reading (66.8+/-12.7 mmHg versus 73.8+/-15.8 mmHg; P=0.001) and a higher percentage of white blood cells that were band forms (22.1% versus 14.2%; P=0.0007). The time from onset of symptoms until admission to hospital was shorter among the bacteremic patients (4.6+/-3.7 days versus 7.0+/-13.9 days; P=0.005). Three capsular polysaccharide types accounted for 53.4% of the isolates: type 14, 29.2%; type 4, 12.1%; and type 22 F, 12.1%. Two of 44 isolates were resistant to penicillin. CONCLUSIONS: While some differences in patient characteristics and presentation occur when patients with bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia are compared with nonbacteremic patients with community-acquired pneumonia, there is considerable overlap, and clinical presentation does not allow one to distinguish the bacteremic patients from the nonbacteremic patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".