MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024496497 · doi:10.1086/318124

Community‐Acquired Pneumonia in the Elderly

2000· review· en· W2024496497 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas J. Marrie

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePneumoniaDeliriumCommunity-acquired pneumoniaStreptococcus pneumoniaeAspiration pneumoniaIntensive care medicinePopulationGeriatricsPediatricsInternal medicineAntibioticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pneumonia in the elderly is a common and serious problem with a clinical presentation that can differ from that in younger patients. Older patients with pneumonia complain of significantly fewer symptoms than do younger patients, and delirium commonly occurs. Indeed, delirium may be the only manifestation of pneumonia in this group of patients. Alcoholism, asthma, immunosuppression, and age >70 years are risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly. Among nursing home residents, the following are risk factors for pneumonia: advanced age, male sex, difficulty in swallowing, inability to take oral medications, profound disability, bedridden state, and urinary incontinence. Streptococcus pneumoniae is the most common cause of pneumonia among the elderly. Aspiration pneumonia is underdiagnosed in this group of patients, and tuberculosis always should be considered. In this population an etiologic diagnosis is rarely available when antimicrobial therapy must be instituted. Use of the guidelines for treatment of pneumonia issued by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, with modification for treatment in the nursing home setting, is recommended.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations376
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207