Outcomes in females hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia are worse than in males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little recent information on sex-specific outcomes of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The objective of this study was to determine whether female sex is associated with better clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with CAP. A secondary analysis was conducted by the Community Acquired Pneumonia Organization regarding male and female patients with CAP from 80 hospitals in 17 countries from June 1, 2001 to August 2, 2011. Outcomes were time to clinical stability, length of stay and in-hospital and 28-day mortality. Propensity-adjusted, multivariate regression models were used to predict the probability of occurrence of each of the study outcomes. There were 6718 patients in this study, of whom 40% were female. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for time to clinical stability was 0.91 (95% CI 0.85-0.97; p=0.005). The adjusted HR for length of stay was 0.94 (95% CI 0.88-1.01; p=0.089). The adjusted risk ratio for in-hospital mortality was 1.04 (95% CI 0.86-1.24; p=0.717), and for 28-day mortality was 1.15 (95% CI 1.02-1.30; p=0.018). This study demonstrates that the epidemiology of CAP may be changing, and that females have worse outcomes for CAP than males. They are more likely to take longer to reach clinical stability, have longer hospital stays and are 15% more likely to have died after 28 days. Current pneumonia scoring systems may need to be revised regarding female mortality risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".