Antimicrobial Prophylaxis and Infection Surveillance in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients: A Multi-Institutional Survey of Practice Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to characterize antimicrobial prophylaxis and infection surveillance practices at centers treating patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). A 37-question web-based survey was sent to all ECMO coordinators and directors at Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) participating centers. Data were reported by center. The most complete response was used when multiple surveys were returned from a single center, and respondents' answers from the same center were analyzed for concordance. Responses were obtained from 76% of ELSO centers (132/173) and 41% of survey recipients (223/548). Most centers administer antibiotic prophylaxis (74%, 97/132), and almost half have a standardized protocol (49%, 64/132). Routine antibacterial but not antifungal prophylaxis is common (42%, 62/132 vs. 2/132, 2%). There is significant variation in the antibiotic choices and duration of prophylaxis, regardless of whether the center has a protocol or not. Almost half of centers (49%, 64/132) perform routine surveillance cultures but at variable intervals. There is significant heterogeneity in antibiotic prophylaxis and infection surveillance practice patterns among ELSO centers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".