Hemodialysis Infection Prevention using Polysporin Ointment with Shower Technique in Satellite Units (HIPPO-SAT) Pilot Study Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hemodialysis patients are often advised not to shower if they have a central venous catheter (catheter).We developed a shower technique catheter protocol for hemodialysis patients with healed catheter exit sites, designed to permit showering but not increase catheterrelated infection risk.Research question: Is it feasible to conduct a randomized control trial comparing the rate of catheter related bacteremia in adult satellite hemodialysis patients using the shower technique protocol versus standard catheter care alone with 6 month follow up?Study Design: This pilot study is a multi-centre randomized control trial.Eligible participants will be randomized to shower technique protocol versus standard care after meeting predefined criteria to confirm healed tunneled catheter exit site.Primary Outcome: Feasibility will be determined by 5 outcome measures: 1) accuracy of the catheter related bacteremia rate documentation in the satellite hemodialysis centre setting, percentage of patients 2) screened, 3) recruited, 4) educated successfully in the shower technique protocol (intervention arm), and 5) treatment contamination of study groups.Study Setting: In 2 academic and 3 community based satellite hemodialysis centres in south central Ontario, Canada.Patient Population: Adult satellite hemodialysis patients dialyzing via tunneled central venous catheters with healed catheter exit sites.Intervention: Shower technique protocol and standard catheter care or control (standard catheter care only).Analysis: Each measure of feasibility has its own statistical threshold for success.If the threshold is reached in 4 of the 5 measures, the full study will be deemed feasible.Discussion: A pilot feasibility study of the larger study is critical due to the potential challenges associated with recruitment, compliance and participant ascertainment bias.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".