Hemodialysis Infection Prevention Protocols Ontario—Shower Technique (HIPPO-ST): A Pilot Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We developed the Hemodialysis Infection Prevention Protocols Ontario-Shower Technique (HIPPO-ST) to permit hemodialysis (HD) patients with central venous catheters (catheters) to shower without additional infection risk. Our primary objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the impact of HIPPO-ST on catheter-related bacteremia (CRB) in adult HD patients. METHODS: Adult HD patients using catheters were recruited from 11 HD units. Patients were randomized to receive HIPPO-ST or standard care and were followed up for 6 months. Only CRB-outcome assessors were blinded. For the study to be considered feasible, 4 of 5 feasibility outcomes, each with its own statistical threshold for success, must have been achieved. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients were randomized (33 HIPPO-ST and 35 control) and were followed up to 6 months. Of 5 measures of feasibility, 4 were achieved: (1) accurate CRB rate documented (threshold: κ level >0.80); (2) 97.8% (279/285) of satellite HD patients with catheters were screened (threshold: >95%); (3) 88% (23/26) in the HIPPO-ST arm were successfully educated by 6 months (threshold: >80%); and (4) 0% (0/29) patients in the control arm were "contaminated," that is, using HIPPO-ST (threshold: <5%). However, only 44.2% (72/163) of eligible patients consented to participate (threshold: >80%). The rate of CRB was similarly low in HIPPO-ST and control groups (0.68 vs. 0.88/1000 catheter days). DISCUSSION: This HIPPO-ST pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of the larger HIPPO-ST study, especially given the high levels of education success with the HIPPO-ST arm and the low levels of contamination in the control arm.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.012 | 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 teacher head, 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".