MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320862518 · doi:10.2215/cjn.09110815

Evaluating Approaches for the Diagnosis of Hemodialysis Catheter–Related Bloodstream Infections

2016· article· en· W2320862518 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Friederike Quittnat Pelletier, Mohammad Joarder, Susan M. Poutanen, Charmaine E. Lok

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversity Health Network
KeywordsMedicineBloodstream infectionHemodialysisIntensive care medicineHemodialysis CatheterCatheterBacteremiaInternal medicineMicrobiologySurgeryAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Guideline-recommended diagnostic criteria for hemodialysis (HD) catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) are based on data from indwelling central catheters in patients not on HD and non-HD situations, and upon which peripheral vein cultures are the gold standard. We aimed to examine the validity of these criteria in patients on HD. DESIGN, SETTINGS, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Adult patients on in-center HD using catheters were prospectively followed from 2011 to 2014 at a large academic-based HD facility (Toronto, Canada). When a CRBSI was suspected, blood culture sets were obtained from four sites (peripheral vein, both catheter hubs, and HD circuit) to determine the guideline-recommended differential time to positivity (DTTP). DTTP criteria were met when catheter hub cultures turned positive ≥120 minutes before peripheral vein cultures. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were first calculated using peripheral vein cultures as the gold standard and then these same calculations were repeated with additional information, including exit site/catheter tip and HD circuit cultures, as the true gold standard. The feasibility of obtaining peripheral vein cultures was determined. RESULTS: Of 178 suspected CRBSIs, 100 had peripheral vein blood cultures. Using the true gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of blood culture results were highest in samples from the HD circuit (93.5%, 100%, and 95%, respectively). The guideline recommended combination of peripheral vein and arterial hub blood cultures was the least sensitive, specific, and accurate (91.7%, 93.1%, and 92.7%, respectively). The diagnostic criteria using measured DTTP were met in less than one third of events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on HD, blood culture results are the most sensitive, specific, and accurate for diagnosing CRBSIs when taken from the HD circuit and the venous catheter hub, and blood culture results are the least sensitive, specific, and accurate in any combination with peripheral vein cultures. The DTTP does not increase diagnostic accuracy, reducing the necessity for venipuncture and its potential vein damage. Future guidelines should consider the applicability of criterion on specific patient populations and tailor them accordingly.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations60
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207