Review: empirical atypical coverage does not reduce mortality in hospitalised patients with community acquired pneumonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shefet D, Robenshtok E, Paul M, et al. Empirical atypical coverage for inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1992–2000. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In hospitalised patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP), does empirical antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens reduce mortality and improve clinical efficacy? Clinical impact ratings Internal medicine ★★★★★★☆ Geriatrics ★★★★★☆☆ Infectious disease ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Data sources: CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2004), Medline (to August 2004), EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (to July 2003), and reference lists of identified studies. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an oral or intravenous antibiotic regimen with coverage of atypical pathogens (macrolides, fluoroquinolones, tetracycline, doxycycline, or chloramphenicol) with a regimen without such coverage for treatment of CAP in hospitalised adults. Studies with >30% dropout rate or involving mainly immune suppressed patients were excluded. Studies were assessed for quality of allocation generation and concealment, blinding, and intention to treat analysis. … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BIntern%2BMed%26rft.issn%253D0003-9926%26rft.aulast%253DShefet%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%26rft.volume%253D165%26rft.issue%253D17%26rft.spage%253D1992%26rft.epage%253D2000%26rft.atitle%253DEmpirical%2BAtypical%2BCoverage%2Bfor%2BInpatients%2BWith%2BCommunity-Acquired%2BPneumonia%253A%2BSystematic%2BReview%2Bof%2BRandomized%2BControlled%2BTrials%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchinte.165.17.1992%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16186469%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archinte.165.17.1992&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16186469&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F3%2F74.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000232112800008&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".