Hemodialysis Infection Prevention with Polysporin Ointment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemodialysis patients in whom permanent vascular access cannot be achieved are dependent on a central venous catheter. In such patients, catheter-related infections are a common and serious complication. This study was a randomized clinical trial to determine if topical Polysporin Triple antibiotic ointment applied to the central venous catheter insertion site could reduce the incidence of catheter-related infections. A total of 169 patients receiving hemodialysis through a central venous catheter were randomized to receive Polysporin Triple or placebo using a double-blind study design. In the 6-mo study period, infections were observed in more patients in the placebo group than in the Polysporin Triple group (34 versus 12%; relative risk, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.68; P = 0.0013). The number of infections per 1000 catheter days (4.10 versus 1.02; P < 0.0001) and the number of bacteremias per 1000 catheter days (2.48 versus 0.63; P = 0.0004) were also greater in the placebo group. Within the 6-mo study period, there were 13 deaths in the placebo group as compared with 3 deaths in the Polysporin Triple group (P = 0.0041). When all available follow-up information was included, the difference in survival remained significant (19 versus 9 deaths; P = 0.0027). Within the first 6 mo, infections were observed in 7 of the 13 placebo subjects who died (54%) as compared with no infections in the three Polysporin Triple subjects who died. The prophylactic application of topical Polysporin Triple antibiotic ointment to the central venous catheter insertion site reduced the rate of infections and was associated with improved survival in hemodialysis patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".