A single center, open‐label, randomized, parallel group study assessing the relationship between asymptomatic bacteriuria and inflammation in maintenance hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The significance of asymptomatic bacteriuria in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients remains controversial. We hypothesized that the presence of asymptomatic bacteriuria as a sole clinical manifestation of urinary tract infection (UTI) in asymptomatic MHD patient may contribute to the chronic inflammatory response. Our aim was to explore the relationship between asymptomatic bacteriuria and elevated levels of inflammatory markers in MHD patients. METHODS: A randomized open-label single center study of 114 MHD patients was conducted. Forty-six patients presented negative urine culture and 41 subjects were excluded due to different reasons. The remaining 27 patients (mean age of 71.5 ± 12.2 years, 63% men), fulfilling the criteria for having asymptomatic bacteriuria, were randomly assigned to either the treatment group (13 patients) or the observational group (14 subjects). The treatment group received 7 days of antibiotic treatment given according to bacteriogram sensitivity. After 3 months of follow-up all measurements of the study were repeated. The primary end point was change in inflammatory biomarkers from baseline by the end of the study. FINDINGS: There were no statistically significant differences in white blood cell changes (P = 0.27), ferritin (P = 0.09), C-reactive protein (P = 0.90), and interleukin-6 (P = 0.14) levels between the groups from baseline to the end of study or at the end of the study. Analyzing cross-sectional data, asymptomatic bacteriuria was found to not be a predictor of higher levels of inflammatory parameters at baseline. DISCUSSION: Asymptomatic bacteriuria is not a modifiable risk factor for chronic inflammation in the MHD population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".