MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100558594

Empirical Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia and the Development of Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Tuberculosis

2016· article· en· W7100558594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical prescriptionTuberculosisPneumoniaPulmonary tuberculosisReceiptAntibioticsPharmacotherapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(See the editorial commentary by Low on pages 1361–3) Background. Fluoroquinolone (FLQ) antibiotics are not uncommonly prescribed for community-acquired pneumonia that is later proven to be pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Such FLQ monotherapy may result in FLQ-resistant pulmonary TB. Methods. To assess outpatient FLQ use by patients with culture-proven pulmonary TB before diagnosis, TB registries in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada, were linked with provincial and federal drug benefit plans. To assess FLQ resistance, a case-control study was performed. Results. Of 428 patients with pulmonary TB who were covered by a drug benefit plan, 74 (17.3%) had received 1 FLQ prescription during the 6 months immediately before receipt of the diagnosis. Older patients (age, 164 years) were more likely than younger patients (age, 15–64 years) to be prescribed an FLQ (). Patients whoP!.05 were prescribed an FLQ received a total of 103 prescriptions. Most (54 [73.0%] of 74) patients who were prescribed an FLQ received a single prescription. Most (69 [67.0%] of 103) FLQ prescriptions were written within 90 days before the diagnosis of pulmonary TB. Patients who were prescribed an FLQ were not statistically significantly more likely than matched patients who were not prescribed an FLQ (control subjects) to be infected with FLQ-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Of 148 isolates of M. tuberculosis from patients and control subjects, 3 were

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0210.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207