Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients Who Have Serotype 5 Invasive Pneumococcal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) due to serotype 5, which occurred as a local outbreak in 2006 to 2007, is associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospital mortality, or organ supports in those who are critically ill. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients who presented with IPD to 2 tertiary hospitals in Vancouver, Canada, from July 2004 to June 2007. We compared patient characteristics, interventions, and outcomes between patients who had serotype 5 and other serotypes using bivariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients had serotype 5 and 106 had nonserotype 5. Patients with serotype 5 were younger, had lower prevalence of comorbid diseases, and had higher rates of substance use than patients with nonserotype 5. There were no differences in chest tube placement for complications of pneumonia or in ICU admission. Frequency of necrotizing pneumonia and hospital mortality were lower in the serotype 5 group. For the 71 patients with IPD who were admitted to ICU, there was no difference in severity of illness, ICU length of stay, or ICU mortality between the groups. There was also no difference in organ supports except that the serotype 5 group was more likely to receive vasopressors. CONCLUSION: Serotype 5 in patients who have IPD is associated with no difference in ICU admission but with increased use of vasopressors and lower hospital mortality.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".