Community-Acquired Pneumonia Requiring Admission to an Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) has been inadequately studied. We compared characteristics and outcomes of patients with CAP who were admitted to the ICU with those of patients managed on the ward. Of the 3675 patients hospitalized with CAP, 374 (10%) were admitted to the ICU. The main reason for ICU admission was respiratory failure requiring intubation and ventilation (n = 303, 81%), although this indication decreased with increasing age (p < 0.05 for trend). Most patients (62%) required mechanical ventilation for 3 days or less. The following factors were predictive of ICU admission on multivariable analysis: younger age, smoker, limitation of functional status, absence of cough or pleurisy, presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, substance abuse, elevated serum creatinine, abnormal serum glucose concentration, and a respiratory rate of <16 or >24 breaths per minute. Patients with low Pneumonia Severity Index scores and low CURB-65 scores were admitted to the ICU based on clinical judgment that appeared to supersede objective scoring. Severe CAP requiring admission to the ICU is common, and the decision about which patients to admit often requires clinical judgment that in many cases appears at odds with various validated pneumonia severity scoring systems.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".