Meticillin-resistant (MRSA): screening and decolonisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meticillin-resistant (MRSA) infections are of increasing importance to clinicians, public health agencies and governments. Prevention and control strategies must address sources in healthcare settings, the community and livestock. This document presents the conclusions of a European Consensus Conference on the role of screening and decolonisation in the control of MRSA infection. The conference was held in Rome on 5-6 March 2010 and was organised jointly by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and the International Society of Chemotherapy (ISC). In an environment where MRSA is endemic, universal or targeted screening of patients to detect colonisation was considered to be an essential pillar of any MRSA control programme, along with the option of decolonising carriers dependent on relative risk of infection, either to self or others, in a specific setting. Staff screening may be useful but is problematic as it needs to distinguish between transient carriage and longer-term colonisation. The consequences of identification of MRSA-positive staff may have important effects on morale and the ability to maintain staffing levels. The role of environmental contamination in MRSA infection is unclear, but screening may be helpful as an audit of hygiene procedures. In all situations, screening procedures and decolonisation carry a significant cost burden, the clinical value of which requires careful evaluation. European initiatives designed to provide further information on the cost/benefit value of particular strategies in the control of infection, including those involving MRSA, are in progress.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".