Is<i>Chlamydia pneumoniae</i>an important pathogen in patients with community-acquired pneumonia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chlamydia pneumoniae has been established as a respiratory pathogen since 1986, when the association of this pathogen with respiratory infections was demonstrated by culture in a study of seroconverting patients in Seattle, USA, in 1984 1. Since then, the majority of studies evaluating the aetiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) have reported the occurrence of C. pneumoniae in ∼10–20% of patients 2–8. Current guidelines published by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 9, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 10, the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society 11, the European Respiratory Society 12 and the British Thoracic Society (BTS) 13 all agree that C. pneumoniae is an important pathogen that should be covered when targeting empirical initial antimicrobial treatment. Obviously, the variation of incidence rates across these studies is not only due to differences in the populations and geographical areas studied but also to inconsistencies in the methodologies used to establish acute C. pneumoniae infections. Whereas most studies applied serological methods, the criteria of seropositivity differed and only a minority of studies also included culture and/or molecular methods. To make things even more complicated, there is no generally accepted technique to firmly diagnose acute C. pneumoniae infection. Whereas complement fixation is only genus- and not species-specific, microimmunofluorescence is difficult to perform, has an important subjective element with regard to reading and remains open to diverse interpretations of seropositivity 14. Moreover, seropositivity is not irrefutably diagnostic of acute infection as positive serological tests were also found to occur in asymptomatic individuals in up to 20% …
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".