Community versus academic hospital community-acquired pneumonia patients: a nested cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most Canadians receive their care in community hospitals, yet most clinical research is conducted in academic hospitals. This study aims to compare patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) treated in academic and community hospitals with respect to their demographics, clinical characteristics, treatments and outcomes. METHODS: This nested observational cohort substudy of the Community Acquired Pneumonia: Toward InnoVAtive Treatment (CAPTIVATE) trial included 1,329 hospitalized adults with CAP recruited between March 1st, 2018 and September 31st, 2023 from 15 Canadian hospitals. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses for age, sex and co-morbidities using logistic, Cox and censored quantile regressions were conducted. RESULTS: Patients in community hospitals were older (mean [SD] 75.0 [15.7] years vs. 68.3 [16.2] years; p < 0.001), were more likely to be female (49.7% vs. 41.0%, p = 0.002), and had more comorbidities (75.9% vs. 64.8%, p < 0.001). More patients in community hospitals received corticosteroids (49.2% vs. 37.4%, p < 0.001). Community hospital patients had a higher likelihood of developing acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR 3.13, 95% CI: 1.87, 5.24, p = < 0.001), and acute cardiac injury (OR 2.53, 95% CI: 1.33, 4.83, p = 0.005). In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, 28-day mortality difference did not meet statistical significance (OR 1.43, 95% CI: 0.98, 20.7, p = 0.062 and OR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.87, p = 0.332, respective). CONCLUSION: Patients with CAP in Canadian community and academic hospitals differed with respect to their age, clinical characteristics, treatments and outcomes, emphasizing the importance of including more community hospitals in clinical research studies to ensure the generalizability of results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".