Interrater Variability in Identifying Ventilator Associated Pneumonia Using Six Different Definitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective There is no widely accepted standard definition for Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP). The reliability of the current definitions in use remains controversial. Our objective was to assess the reliability of six commonly used VAP definitions: The Loose, The Rigorous, The Modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS), The Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (CCCTG), The International Sepsis Forum Consensus (ISFC) and The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Design We examined the electronic health records of all the consecutively admitted adult patients at our institution who received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for ≥ 48 hours, from January 2006 through December 2006.Patients were excluded if they developed pneumonia within the first 48 hours or if they had a tracheostomy before IMV. Two expert intensivists independently reviewed the following data for each patient: indications and duration of IMV, vital signs, oxygen requirements, frequency of respiratory suctioning, amount, color and consistency of secretion, ventilator settings, leukocyte count, microbiologic and radiographic data. Interreviewer reliability in diagnosing VAP independently were compared using Cohen’s-Kappa statistics. Results A total of 115 patients met the initial inclusion criteria of which 47 patients were excluded (40 had pneumonia on presentation, 6 developed pneumonia within 48 hours and 1 had a tracheostomy on admission). The inter-reviewer agreement Kappa for the Loose, the Rigorous, CPIS, CCCTG, ISFC and CDC definitions for VAP were 0.22, 0.49, 0.33, 0.41, 0.38 and 0.68 respectively. Conclusion The CDC definition of VAP proved to be statistically more reliable than other tested definitions of VAP, as demonstrated by the lowest interrater variability between two independent reviewers.
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 | 0.143 | 0.274 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".