Comparative Analysis of the Host Response to Community-acquired and Hospital-acquired Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Preclinical studies suggest that hospitalized patients are susceptible to infections caused by nosocomial respiratory pathogens at least in part because of immune suppression caused by the condition for which they were admitted. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize the systemic host response in hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) when compared with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: We performed a prospective study in two intensive care units (ICUs) in 453 patients with HAP (n = 222) or CAP (n = 231). Immune responses were determined on ICU admission by measuring 19 plasma biomarkers reflecting organ systems implicated in infection pathogenesis (in 192 patients with HAP and 183 patients with CAP) and by applying genome-wide blood gene expression profiling (in 111 patients with HAP and 110 patients with CAP). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients with HAP and CAP presented with similar disease severities and mortality rates did not differ up to 1 year after admission. Plasma proteome analysis revealed largely similar responses, including systemic inflammatory and cytokine responses, and activation of coagulation and the vascular endothelium. The blood leukocyte genomic response was greater than 75% common in patients with HAP and CAP, comprising proinflammatory, antiinflammatory, T-cell signaling, and metabolic pathway gene sets. Patients with HAP showed overexpression of genes involved in cell-cell junction remodeling, adhesion, and diapedesis, which corresponded with lower plasma levels of matrix metalloproteinase-8 and soluble E-selectin. In addition, patients with HAP demonstrated underexpression of a type-I interferon signaling gene signature. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HAP and CAP present with a largely similar host response at ICU admission.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".