Staphylococcus aureus contamination of environmental surfaces and efficacy of alcohol wiping once daily in a hospital with a long-term care facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated Staphylococcus aureus contamination of door and wheelchair handles in a hospital with a care facility. In the hospital, 11 (27.5%) of 40 door handle sites and 7 (28.0%) of 25 wheelchair handle sites were contaminated. The S. aureus contamination density (mean ± SD) was 9.8 ± 14.0 colony-forming units (cfu) for door handles and 285.0 ± 731.6 cfu for wheelchair handles. In the long-term care facility, 18 (51.4%) of 35 door handle sites and 9 (36.0%) of 25 wheelchair handle sites were contaminated. The S. aureus contamination density was 215.3 ± 657.5 cfu for door handles and 295.7 ± 702.0 cfu for wheelchair handles. Because S. aureus contamination was frequently observed not only in the hospital but also in the care facility, we performed an evaluation to determine whether disinfection by wiping with alcohol once daily was effective for maintaining the cleanliness of door handles. S. aureus contamination was compared between door handles 24 hours after disinfection by wiping with 80% (v/v) ethanol once daily for 5 consecutive days (disinfection group) and door handles not disinfected for 5 days following a single disinfection with 80% (v/v) ethanol (nondisinfection group). The S. aureus level did not differ significantly between the disinfection and nondisinfection groups. Disinfection by wiping with alcohol at 24-hour intervals was not always effective in maintaining the cleanliness of door handles.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".