MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094027821 · doi:10.1186/s13613-020-00764-7

Acute respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients: outcome and clinical features according to neutropenia status

2020· article· en· W3094027821 on OpenAlexaff
Djamel Mokart, Michaël Darmon, Peter Schellongowski, Peter Pickkers, Márcio Soares, Jordi Rello, Philippe R. Bauer, Andry van de Louw, Virginie Lemiale, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Ignacio Martín‐Loeches, Jorge I. Salluh, Kateřina Rusínová, Sangeeta Mehta, Massimo Antonelli, Achille Kouatchet, Andreas Barratt‐Due, Miia Valkonen, Precious Pearl Landburg, Ramin Brandt Bukan, Frédéric Pène, Victoria Metaxa, Gastón Burghi, Colombe Saillard, Lene B. Nielsen, Emmanuel Canet, Magali Bisbal, Élie Azoulay

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Intensive Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiologyNeutropeniaIntensive care medicinePain medicineOutcome (game theory)Acute respiratory failureInternal medicineEmergency medicineAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The impact of neutropenia in critically ill immunocompromised patients admitted in a context of acute respiratory failure (ARF) remains uncertain. The primary objective was to assess the prognostic impact of neutropenia on outcomes of these patients. Secondary objective was to assess etiology of ARF according to neutropenia. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter multinational study from 23 ICUs belonging to the Nine-I network. Between November 2015 and July 2016, all adult immunocompromised patients with ARF admitted to the ICU were included in the study. Adjusted analyses included: (1) a hierarchical model with center as random effect; (2) propensity score (PS) matched cohort; and (3) adjusted analysis in the matched cohort. RESULTS: Overall, 1481 patients were included in this study of which 165 had neutropenia at ICU admission (11%). ARF etiologies distribution was significantly different between neutropenic and non-neutropenic patients, main etiologies being bacterial pneumonia (48% vs 27% in neutropenic and non-neutropenic patients, respectively). Initial oxygenation strategy was standard supplemental oxygen in 755 patients (51%), high-flow nasal oxygen in 165 (11%), non-invasive ventilation in 202 (14%) and invasive mechanical ventilation in 359 (24%). Before adjustment, hospital mortality was significantly higher in neutropenic patients (54% vs 42%; p = 0.006). After adjustment for confounder and center effect, neutropenia was no longer associated with outcome (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.93-2.11). Similar results were observed after matching (52% vs 46%, respectively; p = 0.35) and after adjustment in the matched cohort (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.63-1.72). CONCLUSION: Neutropenia at ICU admission is not associated with hospital mortality in this cohort of critically ill immunocompromised patients admitted for ARF. In neutropenic patients, main ARF etiologies are bacterial and fungal infections.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Intensive CareSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207