MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125532569 · doi:10.1183/09031936.03.00072803

Deaths in risk classes I–III: a measure of quality of care in patients hospitalised with CAP?: Table 1

2003· article· en· W2125532569 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thomas J. Marrie

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPfizer CanadaFondation pour la Recherche MédicalePfizer
KeywordsMedicinePneumoniaIntensive care medicineInternal medicineLungRespiratory failureCause of deathCOPDPulmonary fibrosisDiseaseHeart failureCommunity-acquired pneumonia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All deaths occurring in patients with community-acquired pneumonia in risk classes I-III were reviewed as a quality-of-care measure. The immediate and underlying causes of death were classified according to the World Health Organization protocol. Eleven (1.8%) of the 608 low-risk patients died. Three of the patients did not have pneumonia, one of whom was admitted with atypical pulmonary oedema due to stenosis of a prosthetic heart valve. Failure to include chronic lung disease in the severity-of-illness scoring system resulted in misclassification of seven patients. The most common underlying causes of death were pulmonary fibrosis at 27%, chronic obstructive lung disease at 18% and cancer at 27%. Respiratory failure was the immediate cause of death in 64% of patients, cardiac causes in 27%, and pneumonia in 9%. To conclude, the review of deaths in patients at low risk for mortality is useful for monitoring the quality of care received by patients who require admission for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia, and that the pneumonia-specific severity-of-illness scoring system results in misclassification of patients with chronic obstructive lung disease and pulmonary fibrosis.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207