Laboratory data as a quality indicator of health-care-associated infections in England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Routine diagnostic laboratory results, e.g. numbers of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemias, have been used as health-care-associated infection quality indicators for decades. The English health-care-associated infection quality indicator system was one of the earliest in the world to mandate the collection and public reporting of such data and has been associated with a reduction of MRSA bacteraemias and Clostridium difficile infections but has shown mixed results for other infections. Diagnostic laboratory data vary greatly between hospitals depending not only on the underlying frequency of the infection of interest, but on the case mix, numbers of samples processed and laboratory factors, which limits benchmarking. Further, over-reliance on laboratory reports has led to unintended negative consequences in England. So, while acknowledging the successes of the English system, the authors believe that it should be appraised in light of the goals of quality of care, patient safety, fairness and providing meaningful data, and alternative healthcare-associated infection quality indicator measurements considered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".