Effect of <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> infection in the clinical course of patients with cystic fibrosis: A pilot study in a Sydney clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colonisation with Burkholderia cepacia complex in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) has been associated with adverse outcomes. The aim of the present study was to determine the actuarial survival of CF patients colonized with B. cepacia and to evaluate the efficacy of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital segregation policy. A secondary aim was to characterize the specific genomovars and strains of B. cepacia isolated in an Australian clinic. METHODS: Retrospective review of spirometric and microbiological data on all patients colonized with B. cepacia. Each B. cepacia-colonized subject was matched with three case-control subjects. Phenotype and genomovar typing, random amplified polymorphic DNA strain type and B. cepacia epidemic strain marker analyses were performed. The effect of B. cepacia colonization on transplant-free survival was estimated by Cox's proportional hazards regression using the entire clinic population. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were colonized with B. cepacia, of whom six (40%) had died from CF-related disease by August 1998, compared with 30 of 173 (17.3%) of the entire clinic population. Cepacia status had a significant adverse effect on survival, with a hazard ratio of 2.16 (95% confidence interval 1.0-4.69; P = 0.05). The outcome was variable in subgroups of B. cepacia. DISCUSSION: Colonization with B. cepacia had a significant adverse effect on survival within the study population. Genomovar and strain typing contributed usefully in accessing the effectiveness of the hospital's segregation policy in preventing cross-colonization.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".