Adult Cystic Fibrosis Exacerbations and New Strains of <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesized that in adults with cystic fibrosis, the acquisition of a new strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa may be associated with a pulmonary exacerbation. Eighty-four patients who were chronically infected with P. aeruginosa were prospectively followed from eight centers over a 26-month period. Patients had sputum cultures performed every 3 months while clinically stable and at the time of an exacerbation. Forty patients (48%) had an exacerbation requiring intravenous antibiotics during the study period, and in 36 of these patients, their P. aeruginosa isolates were genetically typeable by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. In 34 of the 36 patients (94%), P. aeruginosa recovered during clinical stability and at exacerbation were of the same genotype. In only two patients (6%; 95% confidence interval, 0-18%) was a new P. aeruginosa clone cultured during an exacerbation that had not been cultured during clinical stability. There were no significant differences in antibiotic susceptibilities, measured as mean minimal inhibitory concentrations, for isolates retrieved during clinically stable periods compared with isolates retrieved during exacerbations. We conclude that for the majority of adult patients with cystic fibrosis a new pulmonary exacerbation is not caused by the acquisition of a new strain of P. aeruginosa.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".