Peritonitis Prevention in CAPD: To Mask or Not?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of wearing a face mask to prevent peritonitis during continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) bag exchange. SETTING: Renal unit at a university hospital. PATIENTS: Two groups of patients on CAPD were compared: those performing bag exchange with (n = 24) and those without a face mask (n = 40). OUTCOMES: Occurrence of first episode of peritonitis and total number of episodes. RESULTS: No difference was found between groups with respect to probability of developing the first episode of peritonitis (p = 0.757). Patients holding university degrees had evidence of protection, with borderline significance [relative risk (RR) 0.52; confidence interval (CI) 95%, 0.23 -1.18; p= 0.109]. Cox's proportional hazard regression analysis also demonstrated a significant protective factor for patients with university level education (RR 0.42; Cl 95%, 0.18 - 0.98; p = 0.04). Incidence of peritonitis was not significantly different between groups: with-mask group had 1.0 episode/year, and without-mask group had 0.94 episodes/year. Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most commonly identified agent. Staphylococcus aureus was found more frequently in the with-mask group (p = 0.003). Peritonitis due to Streptococcus viridans and Enterococci were detected only in the without-mask group. CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that routine use of face masks during CAPD bag exchanges may be unnecessary and could be discontinued.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".