MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596502696 · doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2017.03.018

Personal protective equipment solution for UK military medical personnel working in an Ebola virus disease treatment unit in Sierra Leone

2017· article· en· W2596502696 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pelagia Reidy, Tom Fletcher, Clare Shieber, Jane A. Shallcross, H M A Towler, Melissa Ng Yee Ping, Lauren Kenworthy, Nigel Silman, Emma Aarons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Infection · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsPersonal protective equipmentSierra leoneEbola virusMedicineMedical emergencyMilitary personnelMilitary medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)Software deploymentDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The combination of personal protective equipment (PPE) together with donning and doffing protocols was designed to protect British and Canadian military medical personnel in the Kerry Town Ebola Treatment Unit (ETU) in Sierra Leone. The PPE solution was selected to protect medical staff from infectious risks, notably Ebola virus, and chemical (hypochlorite) exposure. PPE maximized dexterity, enabled personnel to work in hot temperatures for periods of up to 2h, protected mucosal membranes when doffing outer layers, and minimized potential contamination of the doffing area with infectious material by reducing the requirement to spray PPE with hypochlorite. The ETU was equipped to allow medical personnel to provide a higher level of care than witnessed in many existing ETUs. This assured personnel working as part of the international response that they would receive as close to Western treatment standards as possible if they were to contract Ebola virus disease (EVD). PPE also enabled clinical interventions that are not seen routinely in West African EVD treatment regimens, whilst providing a robust protective barrier. Competency in using PPE was developed during a nine-day pre-deployment training programme. This allowed over 60 clinical personnel per deployment to practice skills in PPE in a simulated ETU and in classrooms. Overall, the training provided: (i) an evidence base underpinning the PPE solution chosen; (ii) skills in donning and doffing of PPE; (iii) personnel confidence in the selected PPE; and (iv) quantifiable testing of each individual's capability to don PPE, perform tasks and doff PPE safely.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital InfectionSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207