Cleaning of the perineal/genital area before urine collection from toilet-trained children prevented sample contaminationCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S Vaillancourt Correspondence to: Dr S Vaillancourt, Montreal Children’s Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; suzanne.vaillancourt@mail.mcgill.ca When collecting a midstream urine sample from toilet-trained children, does cleaning of the perineal/genital area before collection prevent sample contamination? ### Design: cluster randomised (by week) controlled trial. ### Allocation: not concealed. ### Blinding: blinded (microbiologists). ### Follow-up period: 48 hours. ### Setting: emergency department of a tertiary care paediatric centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. ### Patients: 350 toilet-trained children 2–18 years of age (45% 2–5 y, 37% 6–12 y, and 18% 13–18 y; 60% girls) who had a midstream urine sample requested for any medical reason. Children with developmental delay were excluded. ### Intervention: cleaning of the perineal/genital area twice, using liquid soap and gauze pads (n = 179) or no cleaning (n = 171) before collecting a midstream urine sample in a sterile container. Only samples with a positive urinalysis result were sent to the microbiology …
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 | 0.002 | 0.031 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 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".