MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057607963 · doi:10.1227/neu.0b013e3182544e31

Comparison of Infection Rate With the Use of Antibiotic-Impregnated vs Standard Extraventricular Drainage Devices

2012· article· en· W2057607963 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortLeukocytosisCatheterCerebrospinal fluidAntibioticsGram stainingSurgeryProspective cohort studyExternal ventricular drainIncidence (geometry)Cohort studyMicrobiological cultureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: External ventricular drainage (EVD) catheters provide reliable and accurate means of monitoring intracranial pressure and alleviating elevated pressures via drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). CSF infections occur in approximately 9% of patients. Antibiotic-impregnated (AI) EVD catheters were developed with the goal of reducing the occurrence of EVD catheter-related CSF infections and their associated complications. OBJECTIVE: To present an international, prospective, randomized, open-label trial to evaluate infection incidence of AI vs standard EVD catheters. METHODS: Infection was defined as (1) proven infection, positive CSF culture and positive Gram stain or (2) suspected infection: (A) positive CSF culture with no organisms identified on initial Gram stain; (B) negative CSF culture with a gram-positive or -negative stain; (C) CSF leukocytosis with a white blood cell/red blood cell count >0.02. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-four patients underwent implantation of an EVD catheter. One hundred seventy-six patients in the AI-EVD cohort and 181 in the standard EVD catheter cohort were eligible for evaluation of infection. The 2 groups were similar in all clinical characteristics. Proven infection was documented in 9 (2.5%) patients (AI: 4 [2.3%] vs standard: 5 [2.8%], P = 1.0). Suspected infection was documented in 31 (17.6%) patients receiving AI and 37 (20.4%) patients receiving standard EVD catheters, P = .504. Duration of time to suspected infection was prolonged in the AI cohort (8.8 ± 6.1 days) compared with the standard EVD cohort (4.6 ± 4.2 days), P = .002. CONCLUSION: AI-EVD catheters were associated with an extremely low rate of catheter-related infections. AI catheters were not associated with risk reduction in EVD infection compared to standard catheters. Use of AI-EVD catheters is a safe option for a wide variety of patients requiring CSF drainage and monitoring, but the efficacy of AI-EVD catheters was not supported in this trial.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.231 · 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