Antibiotic lock solutions allow less systemic antibiotic exposure and less catheter malfunction without adversely affecting antimicrobial resistance patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are current concerns that antibiotic lock solutions (ABL) can induce antimicrobial resistance in long-term hemodialysis patients. Retrospective chart review of 157 children on hemodialysis between January 1997 and June 2006 was performed. In ERA I, only systemic antibiotics were used. In ERA II, ABL were added to systemic antibiotics when needed. In ERA III, ABL were used for treatment of all cases of catheter-related bacteremia (CRB) and for CRB prophylaxis in high-risk patients. The study includes 111,325 catheter days. The CRB incidence was 3.9 CRB/1000 catheter days. There was significant decrease for the total systemic antibiotic exposure (P = 0.0484) and the percentage of catheters lost to malfunction (P = 0.001) in ERA III. Protocol ABL exposure was associated with a trend to increased tobramycin-gentamicin resistance for gram-positive CRBs (P = 0.2586) but with improved tobramycin-gentamicin resistance for gram-negative (P = 0.0949) and polymicrobial CRBs (P = 0.1776) and improved vancomycin resistance for gram-positive CRBs (P = 0.0985). This retrospective analysis does not support the premise that ABL use will promote antimicrobial resistance in the hemodialysis population. The decreased exposure to systemic antibiotics by vigorous ABL use may even improve the antimicrobial resistance patterns in this population in the long term.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".