MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040550331 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciu414

Reply to Chironda et al

2014· letter· fr· W2040550331 on OpenAlexaff
Jerome A. Leis, Nick Daneman, Wayne L. Gold, Allison McGeer

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2014
Typeletter
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicAmoebic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To theEditor—We thank Chironda et al for their comments regarding our study [1]. We agree that our intervention reduced antimicrobial therapy for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) without attempting to reduce the number of submitted urine cultures. We applaud their implementation of frontline ownership in the emergency department to improve urine culture ordering practices and the 24% reduction achieved [1]. Although we support efforts to directly address the complex behaviors that lead to unnecessary urine culture ordering, we specifically bypassed such efforts in our study because they have in the past been difficult or impossible to sustain [2]. We propose that the redesign of urine culture processing systems may offer more sustainable improvement in urine culture ordering practices, in addition to decreasing antimicrobial therapy for ASB. Our proof-of-concept study was designed to verify the hypothesis that the majority of antimicrobial therapy for ASB occurs in response to positive results from urine cultures submitted with a low pretest probability of urinary tract infection (UTI) [3]. The corresponding change concept that we evaluated was to render these results available only upon request; we continued to process urine cultures so that results would be available promptly if needed. The few telephone requests received and the rapid change in antimicrobial prescribing observed supported our hypothesis. Although time was required to process specimens, no investment of time was required of any frontline staff or educators.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.1310.057
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.009

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicAmoebic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207