Effect of pulmonary exacerbations treated with oral antibiotics on clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite extensive knowledge regarding the effect of pulmonary exacerbations treated with intravenous antibiotics on clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis (CF), there is little known about the role of milder pulmonary exacerbations treated with oral antibiotics (oPEx). Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with CF followed at the Hospital for Sick Children and St. Michael9s Hospital from 2009 to 2014. We evaluated the effect of oPEx on short-term clinical outcomes as the proportion of oPEx events in which 100% or 90% of baseline FEV1% predicted was recovered at the end of treatment. We then examined the association of the number of oPEx events in the past 12 months on lung function (FEV1% predicted) and nutritional status (body mass index (BMI) z-score) using a mixed-effects model. Results There were a total of 2608 oPEx events in 570 subjects during the study period. In over half (53.4%) of oPEx events, lung function was already at 90% or higher of baseline FEV1 at the initiation of oral antibiotic therapy and 82% were at 90% or higher of baseline FEV1 at follow-up. In individuals with CF, one or more oPex events in the previous 12 months were associated with decreased FEV1 compared with 12 months periods without oPex events. When the cumulative effect of oPExs on lung function was examined over the entire study period, patients with six or more oPEx events had the steepest rate of FEV1 decline. oPEx events were not associated with changes in BMI. Conclusions oPEx events are associated with short-term loss of FEV1 and have a negative effect on lung function over time.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".