MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130805002 · doi:10.1136/ebm.10.4.115

Review: antibiotics active against atypical pathogens do not improve community acquired pneumonia more than   lactam antibiotics

2005· article· en· W2130805002 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas J. Marrie

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunity-acquired pneumoniaMedicineAntibioticsCephalosporinPneumoniaInternal medicinePediatricsMicrobiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mills GD, Oehley MR, Arroll B. Effectiveness of β lactam antibiotics compared with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in non-severe community acquired pneumonia: meta-analysis. BMJ 2005;330:456. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP), how do antibiotics active against atypical pathogens (AAAAPs) compare with β lactam antibiotics for effectiveness? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ Internal medicine ★★★★★★☆ Infectious disease ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Data sources: Cochrane Central Controlled Trials Register, Medline, and EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (to December 2003); conference proceedings; registration authorities; reference lists of review articles and retrieved studies; and pharmaceutical companies conducting trials on AAAAPs. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised, blinded (investigators, patients, and outcome assessors), controlled trials (RCTs) that compared AAAAPs (fluoroquinolones, macrolides, and ketolides) with β lactam antibiotics (penicillins and cephalosporins) in patients with radiographically confirmed CAP. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Outcomes: failure to achieve clinical cure or improvement and all cause … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.38334.591586.82%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15684024%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/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=330/7489/456&atom=%2Febmed%2F10%2F4%2F115.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Review

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207