MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061325404 · doi:10.1097/mcp.0b013e328358f5a2

Effects of a Pseudomonas aeruginosa eradication policy in a cystic fibrosis clinic

2012· review· en· W2061325404 on OpenAlexaff
A. George F. Davidson, Mark Chilvers, Yolanda Lillquist

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTobramycinPseudomonas aeruginosaCystic fibrosisAntibioticsInternal medicineIntravenous antibioticsIntensive care medicineBacteriaMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review is based upon the recent literature regarding eradication of newly acquired infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Psa) in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and the economic and other effects of such an early eradication policy in a CF clinic. RECENT FINDINGS: Various Psa eradication protocols which utilize intravenous or aerosol anti-pseudomonal antibiotics, with or without oral antibiotics, have been reported. The recent ELITE trial reported successful eradication of 90% of Psa in selected Psa antibody negative patients after 28 days of tobramycin for inhalation. Another recent report of a protocol based on intravenous antibiotic use reported elimination of 'first growth' Psa in over 96% of all patients, accompanied by decreased chronic Psa infection, decreased anti-Psa treatment costs and decreased hospitalization costs. SUMMARY: The effects of early eradication protocols for Psa have included decreased prevalence of chronic Psa infection, improved patient health and pulmonary function, and decreased hospital and antibiotic costs.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.361 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Pulmonary MedicineSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207