MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W32675265 · doi:10.1155/2005/672501

Epidemiology of Community‐Acquired Pneumonia in Edmonton, Alberta: An Emergency Department‐Based Study

2005· article· en· W32675265 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas J. Marrie, Jane Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentIntensive care unitPneumoniaEpidemiologyCommunity-acquired pneumoniaEmergency medicineAge groupsPediatricsDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients aged 17 years and older who presented to seven emergency departments in Edmonton, Alberta over a two-year period with community-acquired pneumonia (n=8144) were studied. The admission rates were 271/100,00 and 296/100,000 persons for year 1 and year 2 of the study, respectively. The admission rate increased with increasing age, peaking at 4639/100,000/year for those 90 years of age and older. In contrast, the percentage of patients who were admitted to an intensive care unit was highest for those in the younger age groups between 17 and 59 years of age. From 59 years of age and older, there was a progressive decline in the percentage of patients admitted to an intensive care unit, with approximately 1% of those in the 90 years and older age group admitted. A pronounced seasonal effect on the number of patients presenting to emergency department was also noted. During the winter months, there was up to a 50% increase in the number of cases compared with the summer months.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations86
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207