MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417313947 · doi:10.1002/hsr2.71639

Prognostic Indicators of Carbapenem‐Resistant <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i> Infection: A Meta‐Analysis and Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4417313947 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jie Jin, Yan Hu, Lianxing DU

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Reports · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse effectMEDLINEDiseaseRisk assessmentSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Carbapenem‐resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections are clinically difficult to treat owing to their lack of effective treatments and high mortality rates. This calls for the development of prognostic indicators to facilitate risk stratification and patient management. Aims To identify prognostic indicators of CRAB infections through a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Methods A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to November 2024. Studies that reported the CRAB infections and their adverse outcomes (e.g., mortality, acute kidney injury, recurrent infections) were eligible for enrollment. Data were extracted from the studies by two reviewers, and the quality of the studies was determined using the Newcastle−Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta‐analysis was performed using random‐effects or fixed‐effects models while considering the heterogeneity determined using the I ² statistics. Results Fourteen studies comprising 2250 patients were enrolled in the study. Notably, cardiovascular disease (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.17–2.17), acute kidney injury (OR: 3.15, 95% CI: 1.69–5.88), shock (OR: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.50–3.63), pneumonia (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.02–1.60), hematologic malignancy (OR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.55–3.21), neutropenia (OR: 2.74, 95% CI: 1.48–5.06), and thrombocytopenia (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.10–2.02) were found to be significant prognostic indicators predicting poor outcomes. The use of steroid therapy (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.01–1.64) was linked to increased mortality risk. Conclusion In this meta‐analysis, we detected several prognostic indicators that correlated with poor adverse outcomes in patients with CRAB infections, which may help clinical decision‐making and risk‐stratification strategies. Trial Registration: PROSPERO 2024 CRD42024565429 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024565429 .

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.050
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 venueHealth Science ReportsSame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207