Reasons for Coming to Hospital after Treatment for Community‐Acquired Pneumonia on an Ambulatory Basis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are treated on an ambulatory basis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reasons for presentation to hospital after treatment for CAP on an ambulatory basis. METHODS: The study, conducted in five hospitals in the Capital Health Region (Edmonton, Alberta), enrolled adult patients aged 17 years or older who presented with a history of having been diagnosed and treated for pneumonia within the previous month. A current diagnosis of pneumonia was based on two or more symptoms or signs of CAP, plus radiographic evidence of pneumonia. RESULTS: Seventy-five (77.3%) of the 97 patients who met the inclusion criteria had CAP, and 22 (22.7%) patients presented with a noninfectious illness. Of the patients with CAP, 25 (33.3%) met the study criteria for worsening of a comorbid illness, 23 (30.7%) had clinical failure, 16 (21.3%) had microbiological failure, six (8.0%) were noncompliant, four (5.3%) had failure of expectations and one (1.3%) had adverse effects of antimicrobial therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Underlying diseases, exacerbations of comorbidities and complications of CAP, as well as confounders such as unusual infections and noninfectious conditions that mimic CAP, are all reasons for presenting to hospital after treatment for CAP in an ambulatory setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".