RSV‐associated hospitalization in adults in the USA: A retrospective chart review investigating burden, management strategies, and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: The burden of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in adults is of growing concern. This study was designed to quantify disease burden, treatment approaches, and outcomes associated with RSV infections in adult subpopulations, from prehospitalization to hospital discharge. Methods: A retrospective chart analysis was conducted to collect patient-case data from hospitalized US adults (aged >18 years) with RSV infection during two RSV seasons. Patients were categorized into risk groups: comorbid lung disease, immunocompromised, older adults (aged ≥65 years), and other adults (aged <65 years). Physicians reported diagnosis, treatment choices including respiratory supportive therapy (oxygen and fluid supplementation), and outcome variables using a standardized online case form. Results: The majority (277/379; 73%) of patients presented to the emergency room, with a mean age of 60 years. Once hospitalized, the median length of stay was 6.0 days (3.0-9.0), with disease severity having the greatest impact on duration of stay. No significant between-group differences in rates of patients requiring management in intensive care units were found (comorbid lung disease, 28%; immunocompromised, 36%; older adults, 26%; and other adults, 23%). Overall, respiratory supportive therapy was the most commonly used form of treatment. Antibiotics were administered in over half of all risk groups (comorbid lung disease, 61%; immunocompromised, 59%; older adults, 59%; and other adults, 51%). Patients usually required follow-up visits following discharge, with 10%-16% requiring skilled nursing care and approximately 25% requiring assistance from a social worker. Conclusion: RSV in adult subpopulations, irrespective of age, is a significant burden to healthcare systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".