MRSA eradication of newly acquired lower respiratory tract infection in cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(MRSA) when cultured from respiratory samples. As there is no clear consensus as to which eradication regimen is most effective, we determined the efficacy of eradication regimens used in our CF centre and long-term clinical outcome. All new MRSA positive sputum cultures (n=37) that occurred between 2000 and 2014 were reviewed. Eradication regimen characteristics and clinical, microbiological and long-term outcome data were collected. Rifampicin plus fusidic acid was the most frequently used regimen (24 (65%) out of 37 patients), with an overall success rate of 79% (19 out of 24 patients). Eradication failure was more likely in patients with an additional MRSA-positive peripheral screening swab (p=0.03) and was associated with worse survival (p=0.04). Our results demonstrate the feasibility and clinical benefits of MRSA eradication. As peripheral colonisation was associated with lower eradication success, strategies combining systemic and topical treatments should be considered to optimise outcomes in CF patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".