Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complicated urinary tract infection occurs in individuals with functional or structural abnormalities of the genitourinary tract. OBJECTIVE: To review current knowledge relevant to complicated urinary tract infection, and to provide evidence-based recommendations for management. METHODS: The literature was reviewed through a PubMed search, and additional articles were identified by journal reference review. A draft guideline was prepared and critically reviewed by members of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada Guidelines Committee, with modifications incorporated following the review. RESULTS: Many urological abnormalities may be associated with complicated urinary infection. There is a wide spectrum of potential infecting organisms, and isolated bacteria tend to be more resistant to antimicrobial therapy. Morbidity and infection outcomes in subjects with complicated urinary infection are principally determined by the underlying abnormality rather than the infection. Principles of management include uniform collection of a urine specimen for culture before antimicrobial therapy, characterization of the underlying genitourinary abnormality, and nontreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria except before an invasive genitourinary procedure. The antimicrobial regimen is determined by clinical presentation, patient tolerance, renal function and known or anticipated infecting organisms. If the underlying abnormality contributing to the urinary infection cannot be corrected, then early post-treatment recurrence of infection is anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: The management of complicated urinary infection is individualized depending on patient variables and the infecting organism. Further clinical investigations are necessary to assist in determining optimal antimicrobial regimens.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".