Pneumococcal pneumonia prevalence among adults with severe acute respiratory illness in Thailand - comparison of Bayesian latent class modeling and conventional analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the etiology of pneumonia is essential to guide public health interventions. Diagnostic test results, including from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays of upper respiratory tract specimens, have been used to estimate prevalence of pneumococcal pneumonia. However limitations in test sensitivity and specificity and the specimen types available make establishing a definitive diagnosis challenging. Prevalence estimates for pneumococcal pneumonia could be biased in the absence of a true gold standard reference test for detecting Streptococcus pneumoniae.We conducted a case control study to identify etiologies of community acquired pneumonia (CAP) from April 2014 through August 2015 in Thailand. We estimated the prevalence of pneumococcal pneumonia among adults hospitalized for CAP using Bayesian latent class models (BLCMs) incorporating results of real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing of upper respiratory tract specimens and a urine antigen test (UAT) from cases and controls. We compared the prevalence estimate to conventional analyses using only UAT as a reference test.The estimated prevalence of pneumococcal pneumonia was 8% (95% CI: 5-11%) by conventional analyses. By BLCM, we estimated the prevalence to be 10% (95% CrI: 7-16%) using binary qPCR and UAT results, and 11% (95% CrI: 7-17%) using binary UAT results and qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values.BLCM suggests a > 25% higher prevalence of pneumococcal pneumonia than estimated by a conventional approach assuming UAT as a gold standard reference test. Higher quantities of pneumococcal DNA in the upper respiratory tract were associated with pneumococcal pneumonia in adults but the addition of a second specific pneumococcal test was required to accurately estimate disease status and prevalence. By incorporating the inherent uncertainty of diagnostic tests, BLCM can obtain more reliable estimates of disease status and improve understanding of underlying etiology.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".