Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Hospital Infection: From Miasmas to MRSA J. K. Crellin Graham A. J. Ayliffe and Mary P. English. Hospital Infection: From Miasmas to MRSA. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003. xiii + 274 pp. Ill. $95.00 (cloth, 0-521-81935-0), $38.00 (paperbound, 0-521-53178-0). In starting with theories of contagion/infection in the Middle Ages and ending with present-day issues over hospital infection, Graham Aycliffe and Mary English (with careers in microbiology and mycology) offer a very broad sweep. Historians may well categorize the book as an "internal" history preoccupied with names and dates of milestones, and with plotting progress—but they must not dismiss the real merits of the study. It has the value of bringing together information on an extremely important topic at a time of growing fears of major epidemics. Ayliffe and English close their account with comments on the present and future that are hardly reassuring—and that is without covering the SARS outbreak, which, in Toronto in 2003, uncovered both problems of and mistakes in infection control in large hospitals. Yet while this is essential reading for all those concerned with hospital infection, more insights could have come from a closer look at the social, cultural, and idiosyncratic factors that have been, and are, very much part of the story. One such topic is the way theory—for instance, the concept of cross-infection—has shaped practice over time: although one chapter, "Theories of Infection: From Miasmas to Microbes" (pp. 87-103), spotlights miasma/contagionist controversies, the reader is really given no feeling for the long-standing uncertainties and controversies over just how a disease is "caught," nor for how the diverse opinions affected decisions in hospital planning and management. (It is not without interest that beliefs of miasmatic causes were not entirely absent from last year's public fears about SARS.) Another topic, "hospitalism," might well have been explored in much more detail. The authors indicate that the term, popularized by James Young Simpson, covered hospital-acquired septic infections (p. 83)—but it extended beyond this: by the end of the 1800s, for example, it was even applied to children in hospital who developed loss of weight, indeed a state of marasmus. Hospitalism could have been used to tease out the interplay of concepts of hygiene, the quality of the air, miasms, and microorganisms. The book is most rewarding in its coverage of the last fifty years or so, due to the firsthand experiences of the authors. They provide (with emphasis on the [End Page 167] United Kingdom) a clear outline of milestones. However, their exploration of sociocultural factors remains limited. It would perhaps have been useful to examine the kind of mistakes made by hospital personnel that have sometimes led to a breakdown in the application of well-founded principles and improvements associated with the development of central sterile supply departments, increased commercial (rather than within the hospital) production of sterile fluids, and disposable syringes and needles. One suggestion (relevant to all recent history) is to consider the insights from oral history, perhaps along the lines of the successful series Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth-Century Medicine (now in its seventeenth volume). Oral history, too, may well point up ethical issues ignored by Ayliffe and English, albeit raised in 1998 by V. A. Sharpe and A. I. Faden in "From Hospitalism to Nosocomial Infection Control," issues such as hospitals' wanting to keep infection data confidential amid the need for informed consent for patients.1 Despite this reviewer's wish list, this book serves as a significant stepping stone to an important topic that needs much more exploration in our present era of anticipated global epidemics, new accountability in health care, and growing public sensitivity to issues surrounding medical error. J. K. Crellin Memorial University Newfoundland Footnotes 1. V. A. Sharpe and A. I. Faden, "From Hospitalism to Nosocomial Infection Control," in Medical Harm: Historical, Conceptual and Ethical Dimensions of Iatrogenic Illness (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 153-74. Copyright © 2005 The Johns Hopkins University Press
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".