Rationale for and protocol of a multi-national population-based bacteremia surveillance collaborative
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections are frequent causes of human illness and cause major morbidity and death. In order to best define the epidemiology of these infections and to track changes in occurrence, adverse outcome, and resistance rates over time, population based methodologies are optimal. However, few population-based surveillance systems exist worldwide, and because of differences in methodology inter-regional comparisons are limited. In this report we describe the rationale and propose first practical steps for developing an international collaborative approach to the epidemiologic study and surveillance for bacteremia. FINDINGS: The founding collaborative participants represent six regions in four countries in three continents with a combined annual surveillance population of more than 8 million residents. CONCLUSION: Future studies from this collaborative should lead to a better understanding of the epidemiology of bloodstream infections.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it