MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965849654 · doi:10.1159/000079817

Experience with Levofloxacin in a Critical Pathway for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia

2004· article· en· W1965849654 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas J. Marrie

Bibliographic record

VenueChemotherapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCefuroximeLevofloxacinAzithromycinMedicineCommunity-acquired pneumoniaPneumoniaInternal medicineAntibioticsPneumonia severity indexIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality in both developed and developing countries. Despite research into the optimal management of this condition, there remains great variation in how patients with CAP are treated. A study was performed to assess the results of CAP treatment using a clinical pathway that incorporated admission guidelines, standard treatment orders with oral levofloxacin or cefuroxime axetil plus azithromycin, and an algorithm for oxygen therapy and discharge. The study involved seven centers enrolling 7,734 patients, 55% of whom were treated as outpatients and the remainder were admitted. Overall mortality was 8%, and increasing severity of illness, as assessed by pneumonia severity risk score, was associated with early mortality (within five days of admission) and late mortality (five or more days following admission). The use of the clinical pathway was associated with a reduction in early mortality. The use of levofloxacin alone or with cefuroxime axetil plus azithromycin was associated with decreased mortality compared with the use of other antibiotics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemotherapySame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207