MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bacterial contamination of stethoscopes on the intensive care unit

2009· article· en· W2006251415 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Whittington, Georgia Whitlow, David W. Hewson, Carol Thomas, Stephen J. Brett

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society of Microbiologists
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsStethoscopeMedicineIntensive care unitIntensive careIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed how often bedside stethoscopes in our intensive care unit were cleaned and whether they became colonised with potentially pathogenic bacteria. On two separate days the 12 nurses attending the bedspaces were questioned about frequency of stethoscope cleaning on the unit and the bedside stethoscopes were swabbed before and after cleaning to identify colonising organisms. Twenty-two health care providers entering the unit were asked the same questions and had their personal stethoscopes swabbed. All 32 non-medical staff cleaned their stethoscopes at least every day; however only three out of the 12 medical staff cleaned this often. Out of 24 intensive care unit bedside stethoscopes tested, two diaphragms and five earpieces were colonised with pathogenic bacteria. MRSA cultured from one earpiece persisted after cleaning. Three out of the 22 personal stethoscope diaphragms and five earpieces were colonised with pathogens. After cleaning, two diaphragms and two earpieces were still colonised, demonstrating the importance of regular cleaning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations87
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207