Outcome of <i>Pneumocystis</i> pneumonia in transplant and non‐transplant HIV‐negative immunocompromised patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Previous studies showed HIV‐negative immunocompromised patients are susceptible to Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). However, the PCP outcome has not been compared among HIV‐negative immunocompromised patients. Methods In this retrospective cohort study at the University Health Network, we included all HIV‐negative immunocompromised patients who fulfilled the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PCP diagnosis criteria from December 2018 to December 2019. We compared the demographics, comorbidities, course of illness, and PCP outcome (28‐day mortality and composite outcome [i.e., death or intensive care unit (ICU) admission]) between solid organ transplant (SOT) and non‐SOT patients. Results Of 160 non‐HIV patients with PCP diagnoses, 118 patients fulfilled EORTC criteria (76 males [64.4%], median [range] age: 65.5 [21–87] years). PCP presentation in SOT recipients ( n = 14) was more severe than non‐SOT patients ( n = 104): acute presentation (onset <7 days before admission: 11/14 [78.6%] vs. 51/104 [56%], p = .037), shortness of breath (100% vs. 75/104 [74.3%], p = .037), median [range] O 2 saturation (88% [75%, 99%] vs. 92%[70%, 99%], p = .040), and supplemental O 2 requirement (12/14 [85.7%] vs. 59/104 [56.7%], p = .044). The mortality [4/14, (28.6%) vs. 15/104 (14.4%), p = .176], ICU admission (10/14 [71.4%] vs. 18/104 [17.3%], p < .0001), and mechanical ventilation (8/14 [57.1%] vs. 18/104 [17.3%], p = .0007) in SOT patients was different from non‐SOT patients. In multivariable analysis, SOT recipients were at greater risk of composite outcome than non‐SOT patients (aOR [CI95%]: 12.25 [3.08–48.62], p < .001). Conclusion PCP presentation and outcomes in SOT recipients are more severe than in non‐SOT patients. Further studies are required to explore the biological reasons for this difference. image
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".