THE EFFECT OF PROSPECTIVE INTERVENTION ON THE APPLICATION OF ANTIBIOTICS DURING PERI- OPERATION PERIOD OF TYPE I INCISION IN DEPARTMENT OF ORTHOPEDICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the effect of prospective intervention on the application of antibiotics during peri- operation period of type Ⅰ incision in department of orthopedics. Methods We randomly extracted type Ⅰ incision operation case in the second quarter( the pre- intervention group) and the third quarter( the intervention group) of orthopedics department in 2013,and further evaluated rationality of antibacterial prophylaxis during peri-operation period through the typical case. Results Compared with pre- intervention group,reasonable medication indexes were significantly improved,such as antibiotics using rate significantly decreased( from 89. 2% to 47. 7%);Reasonable antibiotics application rate increased significantly( from 51. 2% to 93. 5%). Conclusion Prospective intervention could effectively reduce the use of antimicrobial drugs and improve the rational application rate of antibiotics peri- operation during peri- operation period of type Ⅰ incision in department of orthopedics,which provids practical basis for improving rational application of antimicrobial agents in peri- operative operation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".