MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404539334 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2404991

Antibiotic Treatment for 7 versus 14 Days in Patients with Bloodstream Infections

2024· article· en· W4404539334 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Research Council of New ZealandCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAustralian Medical CouncilOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsAntibioticsMedicineBloodstream infectionIntensive care medicineInternal medicineMicrobiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Bloodstream infections are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Early, appropriate antibiotic therapy is important, but the duration of treatment is uncertain. Methods In a multicenter, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients (including patients in the intensive care unit [ICU]) who had bloodstream infection to receive antibiotic treatment for 7 days or 14 days. Antibiotic selection, dosing, and route were at the discretion of the treating team. We excluded patients with severe immunosuppression, foci requiring prolonged treatment, single cultures with possible contaminants, or cultures yielding Staphylococcus aureus . The primary outcome was death from any cause by 90 days after diagnosis of the bloodstream infection, with a noninferiority margin of 4 percentage points. Research Summary Antibiotic Treatment for 7 or 14 Days for Bloodstream Infection Results Across 74 hospitals in seven countries, 3608 patients underwent randomization and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; 1814 patients were assigned to 7 days of antibiotic treatment, and 1794 to 14 days. At enrollment, 55.0% of patients were in the ICU and 45.0% were on hospital wards. Infections were acquired in the community (75.4%), hospital wards (13.4%) and ICUs (11.2%). Bacteremia most commonly originated from the urinary tract (42.2%), abdomen (18.8%), lung (13.0%), vascular catheters (6.3%), and skin or soft tissue (5.2%). By 90 days, 261 patients (14.5%) receiving antibiotics for 7 days had died and 286 patients (16.1%) receiving antibiotics for 14 days had died (difference, −1.6 percentage points [95.7% confidence interval {CI}, −4.0 to 0.8]), which showed the noninferiority of the shorter treatment duration. Patients were treated for longer than the assigned duration in 23.1% of the patients in the 7-day group and in 10.7% of the patients in the 14-day group. A per-protocol analysis also showed noninferiority (difference, −2.0 percentage points [95% CI, −4.5 to 0.6]). These findings were generally consistent across secondary clinical outcomes and across prespecified subgroups defined according to patient, pathogen, and syndrome characteristics. Conclusions Among hospitalized patients with bloodstream infection, antibiotic treatment for 7 days was noninferior to treatment for 14 days. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; BALANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03005145 .)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations116
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207