MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148961399 · doi:10.1086/346037

Factors Associated with Death among Adults <55 Years of Age Hospitalized for Community‐Acquired Pneumonia

2003· article· en· W2148961399 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas J. Marrie, Keumhee C. Carrière, Yan Jin, David H. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComorbidityPneumoniaCase fatality rateOdds ratioConfidence intervalEpidemiologyPediatricsCommunity-acquired pneumoniaDemographyEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An administrative database was used to study death occurring among adults aged 18-55 years who were hospitalized during the period from 1 April 1994 through 31 March 1999 for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. In-hospital case-fatality rates for the first 10 days of hospitalization and overall were 2.1% and 3.2%, respectively, for 11,684 patient hospitalizations. Patient factors (age, sex, and comorbidity) were the most important associations with death. Aspiration provided the largest explanation of variance in deaths occurring during the first 10 days of hospitalization (odds ratio, 5.0; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-6.8). Busy hospitals (higher occupancy and higher number of daily admissions) were not associated with higher case-fatality rates. Bigger hospitals (metropolitan hospitals) had higher case-fatality rates, but this was more likely related to greater comorbidity and severity of pneumonia. Death due to community-acquired pneumonia among young and middle-aged adults is infrequent and is more related to the severity of pneumonia and to such risk factors as aspiration than to the manner in which the provision of care is organized.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations46
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207