Bibliographic record
Abstract
The WHO-5 bundle is a good place to start, but might work better with optional extras Hand hygiene, performed appropriately by healthcare workers, protects patients and providers from infections acquired in hospital; ultimately, good hand hygiene saves lives. Despite this, adherence to hand hygiene guidelines is unacceptably poor.1 Hospitals worldwide need to tackle this critical patient safety issue. Many hospitals have tried to improve hand hygiene. Few have been unable to achieve sustained improvements. In a linked paper, Luangasanatip and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.h3728) sought to identify interventions that improve compliance with good hand hygiene in hospital and to establish their relative efficacy through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.2 They excluded study designs at high risk of bias (such as uncontrolled before-after studies). The authors conducted a thorough literature review that identified studies published in 1980-2014. Their review included 41 studies that met eligibility criteria, 31 of which were published after 2009, including five of the six included randomised controlled trials. Most of the evaluated interventions were “multi-modal” or “bundled” interventions that included several different components; only six studies …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".