Differences in the Features of Aspiration Pneumonia According to Site of Acquisition: Community or Continuing Care Facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of aspiration pneumonia and to compare the features and risk factors for this entity in patients from continuing care facilities (CCFs) and the community who were admitted to the hospital with pneumonia. DESIGN: Prospective population-based study. SETTING: Six hospitals in Capital Health Region (Edmonton), Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand nine hundred forty-six adults admitted with pneumonia. Patients were stratified by their residence as community or CCF. MEASUREMENTS: Aspiration pneumonia prevalence; risk factors; and outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, and intensive care unit admission rates. RESULTS: Ten percent of those with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) had aspirated, compared with 30% of those with CCF-acquired pneumonia. Those with community-acquired aspiration pneumonia (CAAP) and those with CCF-acquired aspiration pneumonia (CCF-AP) were younger, more likely to go to ICU, and more likely to require mechanical ventilation and had a longer length of stay and a higher mortality rate than nonaspirators. The risk factors for aspiration differed; for those with CAAP, impaired consciousness due to alcohol, drugs, or hepatic failure predominated, whereas 72% of those with CCF-AP had neurological disease that resulted in dysphagia. Eighty percent were treated with antibiotics effective against anaerobic bacteria. CONCLUSION: Aspiration pneumonia is common in patients with both CAP and CCF-acquired pneumonia. The risk factors differ, and there is a high mortality rate. Neurological disease dominates as the predisposing factor toward aspiration pneumonia in people in CCFs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".