MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161758173 · doi:10.1086/591409

Is Activity against “Atypical” Pathogens Necessary in the Treatment Protocols for Community‐Acquired Pneumonia? Issues with Combination Therapy

2008· review· en· W2161758173 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John G. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMycoplasma pneumoniaeMedicineCommunity-acquired pneumoniaLegionellaLegionella pneumophilaPneumoniaIntensive care medicineAtypical pneumoniaAntibioticsEmpiric therapyErythromycinClinical trialImmunologyInternal medicineMicrobiologyPathologyBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The "atypical pathogens" reviewed include Legionella pneumophila, Chlamydophilia pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Urinary antigen tests are the most frequently used tests for Legionella species and show good specificity and reasonable sensitivity. For M. pneumoniae, detection of immunoglobulin M, used for the past decade, has substantially improved diagnostic specificity and has simplified testing. For C. pneumoniae, there is no consensus on a simplified test that can be commonly used, and the reported results, with the use of tests that have not been well validated for diagnostic accuracy, show great variation in prevalence. With regard to therapeutic trials, 3 meta-analyses have recently addressed the issue of clinical outcome with or without antibiotics directed against atypical pathogens (macrolides or fluoroquinolones vs. beta-lactam agents). These analyses have not been able to demonstrate any clinical benefit, except in a subset analysis of infections caused by L. pneumophila. Nevertheless, multiple studies from the 1950s and 1960s supported a clinical benefit of tetracycline or erythromycin treatment for infections caused by M. pneumoniae. The largest uncontrolled review of antibiotic treatment for hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia demonstrated a clear benefit from the use of macrolides plus cephalosporins or fluoroquinolones, compared with the use of beta-lactams alone, although these data support a potential role for atypical agents, because other potential explanations make drawing conclusions difficult. With regard to future studies, it is noted that the standard of care in the United States, Canada, and some other countries is routine use of agents to treat infection with atypical pathogens, which makes the conduct of controlled trials to address these issues ethically difficult and practically impossible. Additional limitations are the difficulty in diagnostic testing for C. pneumoniae and the importance of rapid institution of therapy for patients severely ill enough to require hospitalization. These observations introduce substantial ethical and logistical barriers to studies of specific agents, except by retrospective analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.206
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations40
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207