CUA Guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis for urologic procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidelines are available for the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis in open operative procedures to prevent postoperative wound infections.1 However, the field of urology uses unique surgical approaches to treat various urologic conditions. Quite often, our approach does not require incisions; instead we use transluminal (endoscopy and catheter manipulation), transrectal (biopsy of the prostate) and/or completely non-invasive (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy [ESWL]) techniques. In urologic procedures, infections may arise not only from skin or rectal flora, but also from organisms in the vicinity of the operative site (i.e., struvite stones, subclinical prostatitis, pre-existing Foley catheters and stents). The sequelae of these infections can have devastating consequences, including significant morbidity and even death. The American Urological Association provides a Best Practice Policy Statement of Urologic Surgery Antimicrobial Prophylaxis.2 To provide a Canadian perspective, the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) Guidelines Committee approached our panel to provide rigorous evidence-based guidelines on the use of antimicrobial prophylactic therapy in urologic procedures that would be applicable in Canada. We concentrated our efforts on areas unique to urology, including urinary tract manipulation, stone surgery, endoscopic surgery and transrectal biopsy of the prostate (TURP). The evidence was then assessed and presented according to best standards of practice. Methods
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".