Risk Factors for Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We performed a systematic review of the literature to establish conclusive evidence of risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Observational studies (cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies) the primary outcome of which was to assess risk factors for CAP in both hospitalized and ambulatory adult patients with radiologically confirmed pneumonia were selected. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale specific for cohort and case-control designs was used for quality assessment. Twenty-nine studies (20 case-control, 8 cohort, and 1 cross-sectional) were selected, with 44.8% of them focused on elderly subjects ≥65 years of age and 34.5% on mixed populations (participants' age >14 years). The median quality score was 7.44 (range 5-9). Age, smoking, environmental exposures, malnutrition, previous CAP, chronic bronchitis/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, functional impairment, poor dental health, immunosuppressive therapy, oral steroids, and treatment with gastric acid-suppressive drugs were definitive risk factors for CAP. Some of these factors are modifiable. Regarding other factors (e.g., gender, overweight, alcohol use, recent respiratory tract infections, pneumococcal and influenza vaccination, inhalation therapy, swallowing disorders, renal and liver dysfunction, diabetes, and cancer) no definitive conclusion could be established. Prompt assessment and correction of modifiable risk factors could reduce morbidity and mortality among adult CAP patients, particularly among the elderly.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it