Infection control in cystic fibrosis: Practical recommendations for the hospital, clinic, and social settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following is a synopsis of a 2-hour symposium entitled “Infection Control in Cystic Fibrosis: Practical Recommendations for the Hospital, Clinic, and Social Settings” held at the Cystic Fibrosis North American Meeting on October 17, 1998, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The symposium topic was requested by health care workers (HCWs) who have previously attended this annual meeting and are representative of members of the multidisciplinary team that care for patients with cystic fibrosis (ie, physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, nutritionists, and social workers). Two of the authors (L. S. and N. M.) served as co-chairpersons and selected the topics and speakers. Speakers were asked to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations. Topics included transmission of potential pathogens (eg, Burkholderia cepacia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA], Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, nontuberculous mycobacteria, and viruses), care of the inanimate environment, and prevention of possible transmission in outpatient settings. Because patient-to-patient transmission of P aeruginosa remains controversial, a debate that used a point/counterpoint format was presented by two of the speakers (N. H. and D. S.).
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 | 0.032 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
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".