Suspected ventilator-associated respiratory infection in severely ill patients: a prospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ventilator-associated respiratory infection (VARI) is an important cause of morbidity in critically-ill patients. Clinical trials performed in heterogeneous populations have suggested there are limited benefits from invasive diagnostic testing to identify patients at risk or to target antimicrobial therapy. However, multiple patient subgroups (for example, immunocompromised, antibiotic-treated) have traditionally been excluded from randomization. We hypothesized that a prospective surveillance study would better identify patients with suspected VARI (sVARI) at high risk for adverse clinical outcomes, and who might be specifically targeted in future trials. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study in all patients ventilated for greater than 48 hours. sVARI was identified by surveillance for changes in white blood cell count, temperature, sputum, and/or new chest X-ray infiltrates. Indices of disease co-morbidity, as well as mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital or ICU stay were correlated with sVARI. RESULTS: Of 1806 patients admitted to the ICU over 14 months, 267 were ventilated for greater than 48 hours, and 77 developed sVARI. Incidence of sVARI was associated with iatrogenic immunosuppression or admission for respiratory illness. Any sVARI, whether suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (sVAP) or ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (sVAT), was associated with increased length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical surveillance for sVARI identifies patients at risk for increased morbidity. Iatrogenically immunosuppressed patients, a subgroup previously excluded from randomized clinical trials, represent a growing proportion of the critically-ill at risk for sVARI who might be targeted for future investigations on diagnostic or therapeutic modalities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".