Experience of application maxipimi at patients with a terminal stage chronic renal insufficiency at allotransplantation of a kidney
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis of infectious complications in patients after allotransplantation of a donor kidney. For the dynamic analysis of frequency of infection‐purulent complications, all patients were divided into 2 groups. The first, control group included 33 patients who were operated from 2000 to 2002 (men‐21, women‐12, adults‐28, children‐5). The second, basic group included 35 patients (men‐22 and women‐13, adult‐28, children‐7), after allotransplantations, which have transferred operation–transplantations of kidney with 2003 on 2004. In the first group purulent–septic complications were marked at 9 patients (27.2%), from them two (6%) have died of a sepsis on a background of antibacterial therapy (cephalosporini 3 generations). Duration of treatment made from 7 up to 15 days. In the second group in the postoperative period purulent – septic complications were marked at 5 of 35 patients (14,2%). All 35 patients in the second group after allotransplantation of a donor kidney carried out preventive antibacterial therapy maxipimi (cephalosporini IV generations) on dosage 1 gram 2 times per day in a combination with amykini intravenously during 7 days. Cases of development of sepsis in this group of patients were not observed. Thus, estimating the received results, it is possible to draw the conclusion, application of antibiotics of a wide spectrum (cephalosporini IV generations) the patient with a terminal stage chronic renal insufficiency after allotransplantation of a donor kidney were lowered with quantity of suppurations of postoperative wounds and occurrence of infectious complications on 13%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".