Quantitative Culture of Bronchoalveolar Lavage in Diagnosis of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections in patients hospitalized in intensive care unit (ICU). The aims of this study were to evaluate quantitative culture of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in the diagnosis of VAP comparing with clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS), and to determine positive and negative predictive values of the test. Methods: A total of 209 samples were taken from the patients hospitalized in ICU with clinical suspicion on VAP, along with the CPIS. As the cut-off value of test, quantity of 10 4 colony-forming unit (CFU)/mL was taken, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. Results: Positive culture has been found in 142 patients (68%). The most common isolates were Acinetobacter baumanii in 49 (34.5%) patients, Klebisella pneumoniae in 31 (21.8%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 14 (9.9%), Staphylococcus aureus in eight (5.6%), Serratia marcensens in seven (4.9%), Escherichia coli in four (2.8%), other Enterobacteriaceae in five (3.5%), Pseudomonas spp in three (2.2%), Candida albicans in two (1.4%), and mixed infection in 19 patients (13.4%). In our study, sensitivity of the quantitative culture of BAL was 91%, specificity was 70%, positive predictive value was 80% and negative predictive value was 85%. Conclusions: Quantitative culture of BAL can be useful in VAP diagnosis in patients hospitalized in the ICU, helping in the discrimination between colonization and the infection. Clin Infect Immun. 2019;4(1):1-5 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cii72
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".