The Halo Effect of Adherence to Guidelines Extends to Patients with Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia Requiring Admission to an Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guideline writing industry started with a group of physicians who met in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on 22 and 23 November 1991 to write a guideline for the management of CAP. This led to an expanded group of “experts” who met in Boston, Massachusetts, in October 1992 for the same purpose, under the auspices of the American Thoracic Society. These 2 meetings resulted in the Canadian Thoracic Society [1] and American Thoracic Society [2] CAP guidelines. Subsequently, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) issued its own guidelines [3], and then these 3 organizations revised or updated their guidelines [3–6]. Along the way, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines designed to promote optimal use of antibiotics in the management of CAP [7], and guidelines for the management of CAP have been issued by many countries, of which only a couple are cited here [8, 9].
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 | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".