Clinical Application of Real-Time PCR to Screening Critically Ill and Emergency-Care Surgical Patients for Methicillin-Resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> : a Quantitative Analytical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical utility of real-time PCR screening assays for methicillin (methicillin)-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization is constrained by the predictive values of their results: as MRSA prevalence falls, the assay's positive predictive value (PPV) drops, and a rising proportion of positive PCR assays will not be confirmed by culture. We provide a quantitative analysis of universal PCR screening of critical care and emergency surgical patients using the BD GeneOhm MRSA PCR system, involving 3,294 assays over six months. A total of 248 PCR assays (7.7%) were positive; however, 88 failed to be confirmed by culture, giving a PPV of 65%. Multivariate analysis was performed to compare PCR-positive culture-positive (P+C+) and PCR-positive culture-negative (P+C-) assays. P+C- results were positively associated with a history of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus infection or colonization (odds ratio [OR], 3.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32 to 7.54) and high PCR thresholds of signal intensity, indicative of a low concentration of target DNA (OR, 1.19 per cycle; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.26). P+C- results were negatively associated with a history of MRSA infection or colonization (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.42) and male sex (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.81). P+C+ patients were significantly more likely to have subsequent positive MRSA culture assays and microbiological evidence of clinical MRSA infection. The risk of subsequent MRSA infection in P+C- patients was not significantly different from that in case-matched PCR-negative controls. We conclude that, given the low PPV and poor correlation between a PCR-positive assay and the clinical outcome, it would be prudent to await culture confirmation before altering infection control measures on the basis of a positive PCR result.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".