MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030206263 · doi:10.1139/w10-017

Cycle times for hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination

2010· letter· en· W2030206263 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan A. Otter, Saber Yezli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman decontaminationHydrogen peroxideChemistryMicrobiologyRadiochemistryBiologyMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with interest the research by Moat et al. investigating the in vitro efficacy of an ozone generator (Moat et al. 2009). In the discussion, the authors refer to the 2004 paper by French et al. investigating the efficacy of condensing hydrogen peroxide vapour (HPV) against methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (French et al. 2004), stating, ‘‘Equivalent studies examining decontamination of hospital rooms with vaporized hydrogen peroxide have reported process times of 5 h.’’ Whilst this was the case in 2004, the introduction of improved aeration equipment to accelerate the catalytic conversion of HPV to oxygen and water vapour means that the cycle time for HPV decontamination is currently approximately 2 h. This is evidenced by several recent studies. For example, a study by Otter et al. investigated the feasibility of routine use of HPV decontamination in a US hospital from January 2006 to October 2007 (Otter et al. 2009). The median cycle time for the 1567 decontaminated rooms was 2 h 20 min. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, HPV technology was introduced into 7 National Health Service hospitals as part of the UK Department of Health funded Showcase Hospitals Project, to assess the feasibility of technologies that are proven to reduce healthcare-associated infections (Department of Health and NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency 2009). A recent conference paper using data from this project reported that the mean cycle time for single rooms was 1 h 40 min (Yezli et al. 2009). The difference between cycle times in the United Kingdom and United States relates to power constraints in the United States, meaning that injection is slower and the aeration equipment runs at a lower capacity. Both the US and UK studies conducted an assessment of room turnaround time, which includes time to clean the room before the cycle and to prepare the room for the next occupant after the cycle. Some level of precycle cleaning is necessary for all vapour-phase decontamination methods, including ozone, to remove visible soiling, which is not permissible for the next occupant, and gross levels of organic matter, which reduce the efficacy of disinfection. The median turnaround time from the vacation of the room to availability for occupation was 4 h in the study from the United States and 6 log10 reduction on a range of nosocomial pathogens, including Clostridium difficile, Acinetobacter baumannii, methicillin-resistant S. aureus, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. In addition, routine use of HPV has been associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of C. difficile (Boyce 2009; Otter et al. 2009). Further studies are required to investigate the comparative efficacy of vapour-phase technologies, whether ozone generators are able to significantly reduce contamination in the busy healthcare setting, and whether any reductions effected are sufficient to reduce transmission (Boyce 2009).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.009

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207