Evaluation of an antiseptic triple-lumen catheter in an intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a decrease in catheter-related bloodstream infection rate in patients with antiseptic triple-lumen catheters in an intensive care unit. DATA SOURCES: Retrospective review of surveillance records, patient medical records, laboratory and microbiological reports, and antibiotic administration records. STUDY SELECTION: Patients admitted to the intensive care unit with triple-lumen catheters. DATA EXTRACTION: A subset of one entry per patient was extracted from 2 yrs of primary bloodstream infection surveillance data. Data collection included risk factors, laboratory and microbiological data, and insertion sites and dates of all intravascular catheters present during triple-lumen catheterization. DATA SYNTHESIS: The catheter-related bloodstream infection rate was 5.4 and 11.3 per 1000 catheter days in antiseptic and nonantiseptic triple-lumen catheter groups, respectively (p = .06). By multivariate analysis using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model, the antiseptic triple-lumen catheters were associated with a significant reduction in catheter-related bloodstream infection (p = .03). Model expansion to include intrajugular site was significant by a likelihood ratio test [2(log likelihood diff) = 4.26 P<.05 chi2(1)] CONCLUSIONS: The use of antiseptic triple-lumen catheters may substantially reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections in an intensive care population and may be subsequently associated with a decrease in length of stay.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".