MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729688819 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.994

TREATMENT OF ASYMPTOMATIC UTI IN OLDER DELIRIOUS MEDICAL INPATIENTS: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

2017· article· en· W2729688819 on OpenAlexaff
Monidipa Dasgupta, Chris Brymer, Sameer Elsayed

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticDeliriumInternal medicineUrinary systemProspective cohort studyCohort studyClostridium difficileCohortIntensive care medicineAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite clinical practice guidelines, asymptomatic bacteriuria in older people is commonly treated because of a change in mental status. We sought to determine how often asymptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) is treated in older delirious individuals, and whether treatment is associated with functional recovery. Consecutive older medical in-patients were screened for delirium, and followed in hospital. Of 343 delirious in-patients, 237 (69%) had poor functional recovery (death, new institutionalization or decreased function at 3 months). Ninety four (27%) were treated for asymptomatic UTI, which was associated with poor recovery compared to those who were not (RR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.14–1.48 overall; RR 1.34). Clostridium difficile infection was significantly more common in the treated group (n=7, 7.5%) compared to the untreated group (n=8, 3.2%), OR 2.45, 95% CI: 0.86–6.96. Treatment of asymptomatic UTI in older delirious medical in-patients was common, and potentially harmful. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

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)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicUrinary Tract Infections ManagementFrench-language works237,207