Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past year, several situations have occurred in Canada in which patients who had recently undergone a surgical procedure were subsequently diagnosed with confirmed or suspected Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease (CJD). This raised concerns over contamination of surgical instruments: which instruments might have been contaminated from direct exposure to tissues; can instruments become cross‐contaminated by exposure to other contaminated instruments; what assessment is necessary to determine cross‐contamination; and what should be done with instruments that have been contaminated. Additionally, should there be a patient traceback in the face of potential but unproven exposure? Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to most of the above questions. Australia, the United Kingdom and the World Health Organization have developed guidelines for the infection control management of patients with CJD, as well as instruments and devices that come into contact with them and their tissues (1‐3). Health Canada′s draft CJD infection control guidelines, withdrawn from the Health Canada Web site until safety concerns regarding sodium hydroxide can be addressed, closely mirrored recommendations made in those documents. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for CJD are under revision. However, a recent American publication made recommendations on what procedures should be used for reprocessing items that have been in contact with the prion protein (PrP) (4). These recommendations differ substantially from the draft Canadian guidelines. This article reviews current knowledge about CJD, and highlights some of the infection control concerns and controversies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".