A Single-Center Study of the Utility of Bronchoalveolar Lavage in Critically Ill Patients With Haematological Malignancy or Stem Cell Transplants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of bronchoscopy-guided bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and decisions on management of antimicrobials in critically ill patients with hematological malignancy and/or hematological stem cell transplant (HSCT). The safety and tolerance of bronchoscopy were also reported. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by reviewing health charts of all adult patients with a hematological malignancy and/or an HSCT who were admitted to the intensive care unit and underwent bronchoscopy and BAL over four years from April 2016 to April 2020 at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh. Results: The cohort included 75 critically ill patients. Of these 75 patients, 53 (70.7%) had HSCT (allogenic 66%, autologous 32.1%, haplogenic 3.8%). Computed tomography of the chest was abnormal in all patients. Predominant findings included airspace abnormalities, ground glass opacities, and others. The positive yield was found to be 20% for bacterial, 22% for viral, 21% for fungal, and other organisms were identified in 2%. Although cytology was not performed in 18 patients, malignant cells were identified on BAL in two patients. While the overall mortality of the cohort was high (46.7%), the vast majority (94.7%) tolerated bronchoscopy and BAL without any complications. However, three patients (4%) developed a pneumothorax and one patient bled and developed the acute respiratory distress syndrome post bronchoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: BAL can identify and detect microorganisms directly influencing the clinical care of patients who have received non-invasive diagnostic tests that yielded negative culture results. Bronchoscopy and BAL are generally safe and well tolerated by critically ill patients with hematological malignancy or HSCT.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".