Defining Bloodstream Infections Related to Central Venous Catheters in Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this review was to determine whether consistent definitions were used in published studies of bloodstream infections due to central venous catheters in patients with cancer (ie, catheter-related or catheter-associated bloodstream infections). Review of 191 studies reporting catheter-related or catheter-associated bloodstream infections in patients with cancer revealed a lack of uniformity in these definitions. We grouped definitions by type, with 39 articles failing to cite or report a definition. Definitions included those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (n = 39) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (n = 18). The criteria included in the definitions in studies were also tabulated. Clinical manifestations were frequently included. Definitions used have been highly variable; comparability of risk factors, incidence, management, and outcomes of such infections is difficult to achieve across studies. Future research should focus on development of a common definition of catheter-related and catheter-associated bloodstream infections for both adults and children with cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".