Community-Acquired Pneumonia Guidelines: A Global Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and since 1993, guidelines for management have been available. The process, which first began in the United States and Canada, has now been implemented in numerous countries throughout the world, and often each geographic region or country develops locally specific recommendations. It is interesting to realize that guidelines from different regions often interpret the same evidence base differently, and guidelines differ from one country to another, even though the bacteriology of CAP is often more similar than different from one region to another. One of the unique contributions of the 2007 US guidelines is the inclusion of quality and performance measures. In addition, US guidelines emphasize management principles that differ from some of the principles in European guidelines because of unique epidemiological considerations. In addition, certain therapy principles apply in the United States that differ from those in other regions, including the need for all patients to receive routine therapy for atypical pathogens, the emergence of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in some patients following influenza, and the need for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit to receive at least two antimicrobial agents. In the future, as guidelines evolve, there will be an important place for regional guidelines, particularly if these guidelines can recommend locally specific strategies to implement guidelines, which if successful, can lead to improved patient outcomes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".