MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Infectious Complications Following Prostate Biopsy: A Single Institution Review

2016· article· en· W2559770853 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Ferretti, Akhil Saji, Roopali Mittal, Amit K. Tiwari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of cancer research updates · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and Tetanus
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate biopsyBiopsyCiprofloxacinAntibioticsIncidence (geometry)ProstateOfloxacinSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Determine incidence of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria complications among patients following prostate biopsy at New York Medical College, NY.Materials and Methods: Retrospective chart review of 229 consecutive patients receiving prostate biopsy between 2009 and 2013 at New York Medical College, NY. Each was administered a Fleet enema the morning of and a three-day course of ciprofloxacin starting the day before biopsy. Results: The 1.3% (3/229) of patients developed infectious complications following biopsy. Each of the (3/3) species isolated was fluoroquinolone-resistant. Among patients developing infectious complications, all had prior exposure to fluoroquinolones and all infectious complications were fluoroquinolone-resistant.Conclusion: This study highlights the need for confirming the patient’s exposure history with fluoroquinolones and considering another class of antibiotics for patients with prior fluoroquinolone exposure to avoid infectious complications following prostate biopsies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of cancer research updatesSame topicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and TetanusFrench-language works237,207