Improving the use of sputum cultures in lower respiratory tract infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical value of sputum culture in suspected lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) remains contentious. The quality of samples submitted significantly impacts their clinical usefulness. METHODS: Using pre-defined criteria we prospectively analysed the appropriateness of sputum samples submitted from consecutive patients with suspected LRTI attending two acute hospital units over ten weeks. We then provided an education package for staff on when and how to collect appropriate sputum samples, and repeated the evaluation. RESULTS: Our intervention reduced sample numbers from 347 to 133, simultaneously increasing the proportion of appropriately sent samples from 40.5 to 60.2% (p=0.001) and reducing cost. Appropriate sampling was associated with a higher yield of pathogens (relative risk 1.51, 95% confidence intervals 1.03-2.21, p=0.03). The rate at which sputum samples appeared to alter clinicians' management remained low and constant at 18% pre- and post-intervention. CONCLUSION: A simple educational intervention can significantly increase appropriateness of sputum sampling, reducing workload and cost.
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 | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".