Review: antibiotics active against atypical pathogens do not improve community acquired pneumonia more than lactam antibiotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | medium |
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".