The Validation of a Novel Surveillance System for Monitoring Bloodstream Infections in the Calgary Zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Electronic surveillance systems (ESSs) that utilize existing information in databases are more efficient than conventional infection surveillance methods. The objective was to assess an ESS for bloodstream infections (BSIs) in the Calgary Zone for its agreement with traditional medical record review. Methods. The ESS was developed by linking related data from regional laboratory and hospital administrative databases and using set definitions for excluding contaminants and duplicate isolates. Infections were classified as hospital-acquired (HA), healthcare-associated community-onset (HCA), or community-acquired (CA). A random sample of patients from the ESS was then compared with independent medical record review. Results. Among the 308 patients selected for comparative review, the ESS identified 318 episodes of BSI of which 130 (40.9%) were CA, 98 (30.8%) were HCA, and 90 (28.3%) were HA. Medical record review identified 313 episodes of which 136 (43.4%) were CA, 97 (30.9%) were HCA, and 80 (25.6%) were HA. Episodes of BSI were concordant in 304 (97%) cases. Overall, there was 85.5% agreement between ESS and medical record review for the classification of where BSIs were acquired (kappa = 0.78, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.75-0.80). Conclusion. This novel ESS identified and classified BSIs with a high degree of accuracy. This system requires additional linkages with other related databases.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".