MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W45351856 · doi:10.1155/2013/652512

Macrolide Use in the Treatment of Critically Ill Patients with Pneumonia: Incidence, Correlates, Timing and Outcomes

2013· article· en· W45351856 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wendy Sligl, Holly Hoang, Dean T. Eurich, Atul Malhotra, Thomas J. Marrie, Sumit R. Majumdar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of AlbertaJanssen CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAbbott CanadaFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of AlbertaPfizer CanadaAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicinePneumoniaPneumonia severity indexIncidence (geometry)APACHE IICohortPopulationAntibioticsCohort studyIntensive care medicineCommunity-acquired pneumoniaIntensive care unit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics are commonly used to treat pneumonia despite increasing antimicrobial resistance. Evidence suggests that macrolides may also decrease mortality in severe sepsis via immunomodulatory properties. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence, correlates, timing and mortality associated with macrolide-based treatment. METHODS: A population-based cohort of critically ill adults with pneumonia at five intensive care units in Edmonton, Alberta, was prospectively followed over two years. Data collected included disease severity (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score), pneumonia severity (Pneumonia Severity Index score), comorbidities, antibiotic treatments at presentation and time to effective antibiotic. The independent association between macrolide-based treatment and 30-day all-cause mortality was examined using multivariable Cox regression. A secondary exploratory analysis examined time to effective antimicrobial therapy. RESULTS: The cohort included 328 patients with a mean Pneumonia Severity Index score of 116 and a mean APACHE II score of 17; 84% required invasive mechanical ventilation. Ninety-one (28%) patients received macrolide-based treatments, with no significant correlates of treatment except nursing home residence (15% versus 30% for nonresidents [P=0.02]). Overall mortality was 54 of 328 (16%) at 30 days: 14 of 91 (15%) among patients treated with macrolides versus 40 of 237 (17%) for nonmacrolides (adjusted HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.50 to 1.74]; P=0.8). Patients who received effective antibiotics within 4 h of presentation were less likely to die than those whose treatment was delayed (14% versus 17%; adjusted HR 0.50 [95% CI 0.27 to 0.94]; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Macrolide-based treatment was not associated with lower 30-day mortality among critically ill patients with pneumonia, although receipt of effective antibiotic within 4 h was strongly predictive of survival. Based on these results, timely effective treatment may be more important than choice of antibiotics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical MicrobiologySame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207