Distinguishing community-acquired bacterial and viral meningitis: Microbes and biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnostic tools to differentiate between community-acquired bacterial and viral meningitis are essential to target the potentially lifesaving antibiotic treatment to those at greatest risk and concurrently spare patients with viral meningitis from the disadvantages of antibiotics. In addition, excluding bacterial meningitis and thus decreasing antibiotic consumption would be important to help reduce antimicrobial resistance and healthcare expenses. The available diagnostic laboratory tests for differentiating bacterial and viral meningitis can be divided microbiological pathogen-focussed methods and biomarkers of the host response. Bacterial culture-independent microbiological methods, such as highly multiplexed nucleic acid amplification tests, are rapidly making their way into the clinical practice. At the same time, more conventional host protein biomarkers, such as procalcitonin and C-reactive protein, are supplemented by newer proteomic and transcriptomic signatures. This review aims to summarise the current state and the recent advances in diagnostic methods to differentiate bacterial from viral meningitis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".