MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987328680 · doi:10.1177/088453360001500211

Current Literature: Prospective Evaluation of Risk Factors for Bloodstream Infection in Patients Receiving Home Infusion Therapy

2000· article· en· W1987328680 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tokars Ji, ST Cookson, MA McArthur

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition in Clinical Practice · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioProspective cohort studyProportional hazards modelInternal medicineCohort studyIntensive care medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background : Intravenous therapy in the outpatient and home settings is commonplace for many diseases and nutritional disorders. Few data are available on the rate of and risk factors for bloodstream infection among patients receiving such therapy. Objective : To determine rates of and risk factors for bloodstream infection among patients receiving home infusion therapy. Design : Prospective, observational cohort study. Setting : Cleveland, Ohio, and Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Patients : Patients receiving home infusion therapy through a central or midline catheter. Measurements : Primary laboratory‐confirmed bloodstream infection. Results : Among 827 patients (988 catheters), the most common diagnoses were infections other than HIV (67%), cancer (24%), nutritional and digestive disease (17%), heart disease (14%), receipt of bone marrow or solid organ transplants (11%), and HIV infection (7%). Sixty‐nine bloodstream infections occurred during 69,532 catheter days (0.99 infections per 1000 days). In a Cox regression model with time‐dependent covariates, independent risk factors for bloodstream infection were recent receipt of a bone marrow transplant (hazard ratio, 5.8 [95% CI, 3.0 to 11.3]), receipt of total parenteral nutrition (hazard ratio, 4.1 [CI, 2.3 to 7.2]), receipt of therapy outside the home (for example, in an outpatient clinic or physician's office) (hazard ratio, 3.6 [CI, 2.2 to 5.9]), use of a multilumen catheter (hazard ratio, 2.8 [CI, 1.7 to 4.7]), and previous bloodstream infection (hazard ratio, 2.5 [CI, 1.5 to 4.2]). Rates of bloodstream infection per 1000 catheter‐days varied from 0.16 for patients with none of these 5 risk factors to 6.77 for patients with 3 or more risk factors. Centrally inserted venous catheters were associated with a higher risk than implanted ports were, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion : Bloodstream infections seem to be infrequent among outpatients receiving infusions through central and midline catheters. However, the rate of infection increases with bone marrow transplantation, parenteral nutrition, infusion therapy in a hospital clinic or physician's office, and use of multilumen catheters. Compared with implanted ports or peripherally inserted catheters, centrally inserted venous catheters may confer greater risk for bloodstream infection. (Ann Intern Med 131:340–347, 1999)

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.384 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition in Clinical PracticeSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207