MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Protective Environment for Hematopoietic Cell Transplant (HSCT) Recipients: The Infectious Diseases Working Party EBMT Analysis of Global Recommendations on Health-Care Facilities

2017· article· en· W2782311208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Styczyński, Simona Iacobelli, Peter Donnelly, Gloria Tridello, Jennifer Hoek, Małgorzata Mikulska, Simone Cesaro

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth careIsolation (microbiology)TransplantationFamily medicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: An international global perspective for guidelines for health-care facilities in which HSCT recipients are treated was announced in 2009 by Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research, National Marrow Donor Program, European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease, and Centers for Disease Control. With respect to guidelines on hospital room design and ventilation for HSCT setting, a set of 10 recommendations were presented (Tomblyn et al, 2009). OBJECTIVE: Since the issue is clearly of practical importance to world-wide transplant community, the IDWP-EBMT created a survey in order to present the current status on protective environment for recipients of HSCT, and to analyze the trends and needs in hospital transplant room design and ventilation. METHODS: The questionnaire consisted of 37 questions in all and was divided into 6 sections that included the contact information and details of the protective isolation facility including air filtration, air changes, maintenance, combination of isolation, protective environment room/unit and floor. RESULTS: In all, 177 centres from 36 countries responded to the survey, with average 33% country response rate. Physicians completed 62%, nurses 19% and support staff 19% of the surveys. A total number of 71% of answers were provided to all questions. The total number of unanswered questions was lowest among physicians (23% vs 49%; p CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge about the maintenance of protective environments in the HSCT setting was inadequate, reflecting a lacking information between health personnel working in the ward and hospital offices. Only 6 centers were able to meet all 10 recommendations listed by Tomblyn et al and few centers were able to meet all the relevant technical requirements. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueBloodSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207