Antibiotic Utilization Patterns in Patients with Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Canadian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This retrospective cohort study describes the patterns of antibiotic use for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the Calgary Zone of Alberta Health Services. Timing, appropriateness, and duration of antibiotics were evaluated in two hundred consecutive cases of VAP derived from 4 adult intensive care units (ICU). Antibiotic therapy was initiated in less than 24 hours from VAP diagnosis in 83% of cases. Although most patients (89%) received empiric therapy that demonstrated in vitro sensitivity to the identified pathogens, only 24% of cases were congruent with the 2008 Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease (AMMI) guidelines. Both ICU (p = 0.001) and hospital (p = 0.015) mortality were significantly lower and there was a trend for shorter ICU length of stay (p = 0.051) in patients who received appropriate versus inappropriate initial antibiotics. There were no outcome differences related to compliance with AMMI guidelines. This exploratory study provides insight into the use of antimicrobials for the treatment of VAP in a large Canadian health region. The discordance between the assessments of appropriateness of empiric therapy based on recovered pathogens versus AMMI guidelines is notable, emphasizing the importance of using as much as possible local microbiologic and antimicrobial resistance data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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".