MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995657762 · doi:10.1017/s0950268800003563

The stethoscope in the emergency department: a vector of infection?

2000· article· en· W1995657762 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStethoscopeEmergency departmentMedicineIsolation (microbiology)AntisepticMicrobiologyMicroorganismPseudomonas aeruginosaMedical emergencyEmergency medicineBacteriaBiologyNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purposes of this study were to determine whether microorganisms can be isolated from the membranes of stethoscopes used by clinicians and nurses, and to analyse whether or not the degree of bacterial colonization could be reduced with different cleaning methods. We designed a transversal before-after study in which 122 stethoscopes were examined. Coagulase negative staphylococci (which are also potentially pathogenic microorganisms) were isolated together with 13 other potentially pathogenic microorganisms, including S. aureus, Acinetobacter sp. and Enterobacter agglomerans. The most effective antiseptic was propyl alcohol. Analysis of the cleaning habits of the Emergency Department (ED) staff, showed that 45% cleaned the stethoscope annually or never. The isolation of potentially pathogenic microorganisms suggests that the stethoscope must be considered as a potential vector of infection not only in the ED but also in other hospital wards and out-patient clinics.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.335 · 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