Floatation tank associated<i>Pseudomonas aeruoginosa</i>infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floatation tank water contains a high concentration of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), which should be unfavorable to most microorganisms that are not salt tolerant. The high salt concentration also means that users of floatation tanks are more likely to shower after floating and are less likely to float with open sores, get water in their eyes, or ingest the floatation tank water. In addition, the number of daily users is relatively stable. However, despite these factors, pathogens commonly associated with pool or hot tub use can still be found in floatation tanks. A clinical case of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection associated with exposure to a floatation tank was investigated by Vancouver Coastal Health. The investigation resulted in the issuance of a closure order to the operator of the facility. A clinical specimen obtained from the complainant and a water sample from the implicated floatation tank both tested positive for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, although, the isolates were markedly different. The possible explanations for this laboratory outcome are presented. This case study illustrates that a disruption of floatation tank water filtration, disinfection, salinity, or a combination of some or all of these factors, may result in conditions favorable for bacterial survival, growth, and disease transmission.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".