MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318447150 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0b013e328356cefe

Update on bloodstream infections in ICUs

2012· review· en· W2318447150 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Timsit, Kevin B. Laupland

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersGilead SciencesPfizer
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineIncidence (geometry)EpidemiologyIntensive careAntibiotic resistanceHealth careCritically illInternal medicineAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe new developments in the epidemiology and outcomes associated with bloodstream infections (BSIs) in ICUs. RECENT FINDINGS: The incidence and outcomes associated with BSI among patients admitted to ICUs have been changing as a result of increasing numbers of older patients with comorbid medical illnesses suffering critical illness. Community-onset healthcare-associated BSIs are recognized as important causes of BSIs in ICUs and are distinct from community-acquired and nosocomial BSIs. Electronic surveillance systems are evolving that provide efficient information about the occurrence of BSIs and for tracking the emergence of resistance. SUMMARY: The incidence of healthcare-associated BSIs increases and is associated with bacteria resistant to antimicrobials used in community-acquired infections. The recent years have witnessed the emergence of extensively resistant bacteria in many regions worldwide, and this is associated with major implications for failure of antimicrobial therapies. Enhanced preventive efforts and optimization of therapy are needed in order to reduce the major burden of BSIs in critically ill patients and to minimize the further emergence of resistance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.325
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207