An Evaluation of Extended Incubation Time with Blind Subculture of Blood Cultures in Patients with Suspect Endocarditis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a small proportion of patients, bacterial endocarditis is due to organisms that grow slowly and may not be recovered in conventional blood cultures incubated for five days. This has led to recommendations for prolonged incubation and routine subculture of negative cultures. OBJECTIVE: The above-mentioned approach is evaluated. METHOD: The microbiology of all blood cultures subjected to prolonged incubation and the charts of individuals who had organisms recovered after five days were evaluated to determine their clinical significance. RESULTS: In all, 507 blood cultures were handled using an extended incubation and blind subculture protocol. Fifty-three blood cultures in 27 patients were positive. Blood cultures were positive after five days in only five cases; patient outcomes were not affected by the results in any of these cases, although several fastidious organisms (ie, Haemophilus paraphrophilus and Haemophilus parainfluenzae) were recovered in the first five days of incubation. CONCLUSION: Prolonged incubation and blood subcultures in patients with suspected endocarditis or infections due to fastidious organisms do not represent a wise use of increasingly scarce resources.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".