Identifying clusters of coexisting conditions and outcomes among adults admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia: a multicentre cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little is known about patterns of coexisting conditions and their influence on clinical care or outcomes in adults admitted to hospital for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We sought to evaluate how coexisting conditions cluster in this population to advance understanding of how multimorbidity affects CAP. Methods: We studied 11 085 adults admitted to hospital with CAP at 7 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Using cluster analysis, we identified patient subgroups based on clustering of comorbidities in the Charlson Comorbidity Index. We derived and replicated cluster analyses in independent cohorts (derivation sample 2010–2015, replication sample 2015–2017), then combined these into a total cohort for final cluster analyses. We described differences in medications, imaging and outcomes. Results: Patients clustered into 7 subgroups. The low comorbidity subgroup (n = 3052, 27.5%) had no comorbidities. The DM-HF-Pulm subgroup had prevalent diabetes, heart failure and chronic lung disease (n = 1710, 15.4%). One disease category defined each remaining subgroup, as follows: pulmonary (n = 1621, 14.6%), diabetes (n = 1281, 11.6%), heart failure (n = 1370, 12.4%), dementia (n = 1038, 9.4%) and cancer (n = 1013, 9.1%). Corticosteroid use ranged from 11.5% to 64.9% in the dementia and pulmonary subgroups, respectively. Piperacillin–tazobactam use ranged from 9.1% to 28.0% in the pulmonary and cancer subgroups, respectively. The use of thoracic computed tomography ranged from 5.7% to 36.3% in the dementia and cancer subgroups, respectively. Adjusting for patient factors, the risk of in-hospital death was greater in the cancer (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.44–3.99), dementia (adjusted OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.05–2.35), heart failure (adjusted OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.35–2.03) and DM-HF-Pulm subgroups (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.12–1.61), and lower in the diabetes subgroup (adjusted OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50–0.89), compared with the low comorbidity group. Interpretation: Patients admitted to hospital with CAP cluster into clinically recognizable subgroups based on coexisting conditions. Clinical care and outcomes vary among these subgroups with little evidence to guide decision-making, highlighting opportunities for research to personalize care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".