MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894892308 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofv133.528

Sending Repeat Cultures: Is There a Role in the Management of Bacteremic Episodes? (SCRIBE Study)

2015· article· en· W2894892308 on OpenAlexaff
Brad Wiggers, Wei Xiong, Nick Daneman

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePathogenic organismMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. In the management of bacteremia, the occurrence of positive repeat blood cultures (breakthrough bacteremia) has been associated with increased mortality. However, blood cultures are costly and it is likely unnecessary to repeat them in many cases of bacteremia. We assessed the clinical and microbiologic predictors of breakthrough bacteremia that should prompt clinicians to repeat blood cultures. Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of bacteremic episodes at an academic hospital from April 1 2010 to June 30 2014. We examined clinical and microbiologic variables associated with patients undergoing repeat blood cultures, and associations with the repeat cultures being positive. A nested case control analysis was performed on a subset of patients with repeat cultures. Results. Among 1801 index bacteremias, repeat cultures were drawn for 701 patients (38.9%), and 118 breakthrough bacteremias (6.6%) were detected. Having a repeat culture drawn was a marker of increased 30-day mortality (27.0% versus 11.2%, P < .001). Admission to a medical service (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-5.84), endovascular (aOR, 7.66; 95% CI, 2.30-25.48) or epidural (aOR, 26.99; 95% CI, 1.91-391.08) source, and Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.88-10.73) were independently associated with breakthrough bacteremia. Escherichia coli (5.1%, P = 0.006), viridans group (1.7%, P = 0.035) and β-hemolytic streptococci (0%, P = 0.028), and a genito-urinary source (5.9%, P = 0.008) were associated with a lower likelihood of breakthrough bacteremia. Patients with breakthrough bacteremia were less likely to have undergone definitive source control within 48 hours of the index event than those with cleared bacteremia (29.7% versus 52.5%, P < .001). We identified 1031 unnecessary repeat cultures costing $22,433-$58,250. Conclusion. Patients with S. aureus bacteremia and endovascular sources of infection are at risk of breakthrough bacteremia. Attaining source control within 48 hours of the index bacteremia may help to clear the infection. Repeat cultures after 48 hours are low yield for most Gram-negative and streptococcal bacteremias. Disclosures. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207