Community‐Onset Bloodstream Infection during the ‘After Hours’ Is not Associated with an increased Risk for Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Patients admitted to hospital during the 'after hours' (weekends and evenings) may be at increased risk for adverse outcome. The objective of the present study was to assess whether community-onset bloodstream infections presenting in the after hours are associated with death. METHODS: All patients in the Victoria area of British Columbia, who had first admissions with community-onset bloodstream infections between 1998 and 2005 were included. The day of admission to hospital, the day and time of culture draw, and all-cause, in-hospital mortality were ascertained. RESULTS: A total of 2108 patients were studied. Twenty-six per cent of patients were admitted on a weekend. Blood cultures were drawn on a weekend in 27% of cases and, in 43%, 33%, and 25% of cases, cultures were drawn during the day (08:00 to 17:59), the evening (18:00 to 22:59) and night (23:00 to 07:59), respectively. More than two-thirds (69%) of index cultures were drawn during the after hours (any time Saturday or Sunday and weekdays 18:00 to 07:59). The overall in-hospital case fatality rate was 13%. No difference in mortality was observed in relation to the day of the week of admission or time period of sampling. After-hours sampling was not associated with mortality in a multivariable logistic regression model examining factors associated with death. CONCLUSION: Presentation with community-onset, bloodstream infection during the after hours does not increase the risk of death.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".