Outcomes associated with early removal versus retention of peripherally inserted central catheters after diagnosis of catheter-associated infections in neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes and hospital resource utilization of infants who had peripherally inserted central catheters removed early versus retained following diagnosis of central line-associated bloodstream infection. STUDY DESIGN: In a single centre retrospective cohort study, we compared outcomes of infants who had peripherally inserted central catheters removed early versus retained after diagnosis of central line-associated bloodstream infection. Mortality, cardio-respiratory deterioration, use of blood products and antibiotics were compared between groups. RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, of the 119 eligible infants, 38 had peripherally inserted central catheters removed early and 81 had catheters retained after diagnosis of central line-associated bloodstream infection. Baseline demographics, illness severity at onset of sepsis and distribution of organisms were similar between the groups. Infants in "catheter-retained" group required longer antibiotic usage (17 ± 9 versus 13 ± 6 days; p = 0.025) and more frequent sequential positive blood cultures [31/81 (47%) versus 8/38 (22%), p = 0.014). Infants with Gram-negative bacteremia demonstrated higher mortality when catheters were retained [43% (9/21) versus 7% (1/14); p = 0.028]. CONCLUSIONS: Retaining peripherally inserted central catheters after diagnosis of central line-associated bloodstream infection was associated with longer duration of bacteremia and prolonged exposure to systemic antibiotics as well as increased mortality in Gram-negative bacteremia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".