Real‐world use of glucocorticoids and clinical outcomes in adults hospitalized with community‐acquired pneumonia on medical wards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the real-world use of systemic glucocorticoids to treat patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) outside of the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 11,588 hospitalizations for CAP without chronic pulmonary disease at seven hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We report physician-level variation in the use of glucocorticoids and trends over time. We investigated the association between glucocorticoid prescriptions and clinical outcomes, using propensity score overlap weighting to account for confounding by indication. RESULTS: Glucocorticoids were prescribed in 1283 (11.1%) patients, increasing over time from 10.0% in 2010 to 11.9% in 2020 (p = .008). Physician glucocorticoid prescribing ranged from 2.9% to 34.6% (median 10.0%, inter quartile range [IQR]: 6.7%-14.6%). Patients receiving glucocorticoids tended to be younger (median age 73 vs. 79), have higher Charlson comorbidity scores (score of 2 or more: 42.4% vs. 31.0%), more cancer (26.6% vs. 13.2%), more renal disease (11.5% vs. 6.6%), and less dementia (7.8% vs. 14.8%). Patients treated with glucocorticoids had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (weighted Risk Difference = 1.72, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.16-3.3, p = .033). Glucocorticoid use was not associated with ICU admission, hospital length-of-stay, or 30-day readmission. CONCLUSION: Glucocorticoids were prescribed in 11.1% of patients hospitalized with CAP outside of ICU and one in four physicians prescribed glucocorticoids in more than 14% of patients. Glucocorticoid use was associated with greater in-hospital mortality, although these findings are limited by large selection effects. Clinicians should exercise caution in prescribing glucocorticoids for nonsevere CAP, and definitive trials are needed in this population.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".