MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613112955 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v12i1.162

Infectious Diseases Risk While on Chronic, High-Dose Corticosteroids

2017· article· en· W2613112955 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anjali Shroff, Dominik Mertz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia detection and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreHamilton Health SciencesHamilton General HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the definition of high-dose corticosteroids depends on the indication, it is typically defined as greater than 15–20 mg for greater than 2–4 weeks. Corticosteroids have a variety of indications such as autoimmune, gastrointestinal, rheumatologic, respiratory, and hematologic conditions and after organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. They can predispose these patients to infections such as pneumococcal pneumonia, Pneumocystis jirovecii (carinii) pneumonia (PJP), hepatitis B reactivation, active tuberculosis, and disseminated strongyloides infection. This article outlines ways to modify these risks in these patients. Prophylaxis is of utmost importance to those at risk for PJP with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, lamivudine for those at risk of hepatitis B reactivation, isoniazid (INH) for latent tuberculosis and ivermectin for those with positive strongyloides serology. Equally important in mitigating disease risk is the appropriate timing of vaccines to elicit an adequate immune response as well as offering additional vaccines such as the pneumococcal vaccine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicPneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia detection and treatmentFrench-language works237,207