Risk factors for post-bronchoscopy pneumonia: a case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bronchoscopy, though usually safe, is occasionally associated with complications, such as pneumonia. However, the use of prophylactic antibiotics is not recommended by the guidelines of the British Thoracic Society. Thus far there are few reports of the risk factors for post-bronchoscopy pneumonia; the purpose of this study was to evaluate these risk factors. We retrospectively collected data on patients in whom post-bronchoscopy pneumonia developed from the medical records of 2,265 patients who received 2666 diagnostic bronchoscopies at our institution between April 2006 and November 2011. Twice as many patients were enrolled in the control group as in the pneumonia group. The patients were matched for age and sex. In total, 37 patients (1.4%) had post-bronchoscopy pneumonia. Univariate analysis showed that a significantly larger proportion of patients in the pneumonia group had tracheobronchial stenosis (75.7% vs 18.9%, p < 0.01) and a final diagnosis of primary lung cancer (75.7% vs 43.2%, p < 0.01) than in the control group. The pneumonia group tended to have more patients with a history of smoking (83.8% vs 67.1%, p = 0.06) or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) (4.3% vs 14.9%, p = 0.14) than the control group. In multivariate analysis, we found that tracheobronchial stenosis remained an independent risk factor for post-bronchoscopy pneumonia (odds ratio: 7.8, 95%CI: 2.5-24.2). In conclusion, tracheobronchial stenosis was identified as an independent risk factor for post-bronchoscopy pneumonia by multivariate analysis in this age- and sex- matched case control study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".