MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multiplexed PCR Diagnosis of Bacterial Atypical Pneumonias in the After COVID Era

2025· article· en· W4415358267 on OpenAlexaff
H. Willoughby Ellis, Luis Carlos Moreno C., Ip Ada Y. F., Leung Ting Fan, C. H. Alvin, Yathish G.C., Qian Su Yun

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pediatric Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoxycyclineMycoplasma pneumoniaeChlamydiaPneumoniaMycoplasmaAtypical pneumoniaStreptococcus pneumoniaeTetracycline

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atypical Pneumonia (AP) is any type of pneumonia not caused by one of the common microorganisms, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae. The most common etiologic microorganisms are intracellular bacteria and viruses, including Chlamydia pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. These microorganisms have been difficult to culture. The pandemic of COVID-19 has changed the management of these APs as a result of the widespread usage of multiplexed PCR tests. We have audited 7 anonymized cases of AP to illustrate the utility of these multiplexed PCR-based tests, which can aid the diagnosis and prompt treatment of several AP cases. In conclusion, AP can be readily diagnosed with a multiplexed PCR test, so that efficacious treatment can be initiated without delay. Chlamydia and Bordetella diseases are readily diagnosed even with NPS specimens. Macrolides and doxycycline are readily available oral medications for treating AP in children. Doxycycline is efficacious for macrolide-resistant mycoplasma disease and does not have the side effects of tetracycline in the young pediatric 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Pediatric ReviewsSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207