Impact of guideline-consistent therapy on outcome of patients with healthcare-associated and community-acquired pneumonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A new category of healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) has been added in the most recent American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines, since multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens are more common in patients with HCAP than in those with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The optimal empirical management of patients with HCAP remains controversial and adherence to guidelines is inconsistent. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 3295 adults admitted for pneumonia in an academic centre of Canada, between 1997 and 2008. RESULTS: MDR pathogens were more common among patients with HCAP than in those with CAP, but less so than in other studies. Compared with patients with CAP, those with HCAP had a higher all-cause 30 day mortality [68/563 (12%) versus 201/2732 (7%); P < 0.001] and more frequent need for mechanical ventilation [78/563 (14%) versus 276/2732 (10%); P = 0.01]. In patients with CAP, mortality was lower when treatment was concordant with guidelines [86/1557 (6%) versus 109/1097 (10%) if discordant; adjusted odds ratio 0.6 (0.4-0.8); P < 0.001]. In HCAP, mortality was similar whether or not empirical treatment was concordant with guidelines [6/35 (17%) versus 18/148 (12%) if discordant; P = 0.4]. However, 30 day mortality tended to be higher when the empirical treatment was microbiologically ineffective [4/22 (18%) versus 17/187 (9%) when effective; P = 0.3]. CONCLUSIONS: HCAP is associated with worse outcomes than CAP. MDR pathogens were implicated in only a small fraction of HCAP cases. In our study, unlike CAP, non-respect of current HCAP guidelines had no adverse effect on the ultimate outcome. Strategies for the empirical management of HCAP should be tailored to the local epidemiological context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".