Complex Thrombo-Inflammatory Responses versus Outcomes of Non-COVID-19 Community-Acquired Pneumonia and COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The thrombo-inflammatory response and outcomes of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) due to various organisms (non-COVID-19 CAP) versus CAP due to a single virus, SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., COVID-19) may differ. METHODS: Adults hospitalized with non-COVID-19 CAP (December 1, 2021-June 15, 2023) or COVID-19 (March 2, 2020-June 15, 2023) in Canada. We compared non-COVID-19 CAP and COVID-19 baseline, thrombo-inflammatory response, and mortality. We measured plasma cytokine and coagulation factor levels in a sample of patients, did hierarchical clustering, and compared cytokine and coagulation factor levels. RESULTS: In 2,485 patients (non-COVID-19 CAP, n = 719; COVID-19 patients, n = 2,157), non-COVID-19 CAP patients had significantly lower 28-day mortality (CAP vs. COVID-19 waves 1 and 2; 10% vs. 18% and 16%, respectively), intensive care unit admission (CAP vs. all waves; 15% vs. 39%, 37%, 33%, and 24%, respectively), invasive ventilation (CAP vs. waves 1, 2, and 3 patients; 11% vs. 25%, 20%, and 16%), vasopressor use (CAP 12% vs. 23%, 21%, and 18%), and renal replacement therapy use (CAP 3% vs. Omicron 7%). Complexity of hierarchical clustering aligned directly with mortality: COVID-19 wave 1 and 2 patients had six clusters at admission and higher mortality than non-COVID-19 CAP and Omicron that had three clusters at admission. Pooling all COVID-19 waves increased complexity with seven clusters on admission. CONCLUSION: Complex thrombo-inflammatory responses aligned with mortality of CAP. At a fundamental level, the human thrombo-inflammatory response to a brand new virus was "confused" whereas humans had eons of time to develop a more concise efficient thrombo-inflammatory host response to CAP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".