MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954522284 · doi:10.11575/prism/36480

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Decolonization Protocol for Staphylococcus aureus Prior to Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in Alberta, Canada

2019· dissertation· en· W2954522284 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Elissa Rennert‐May

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlberta InnovatesAlberta Health Services
KeywordsStaphylococcus aureusMedicineProtocol (science)ArthroplastySurgeryAlternative medicineBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are over 100,000 knee/hip replacements yearly in Canada. While these procedures improve mobility and quality of life, approximately 1% develop complex surgical site infections (SSIs) after surgery. Detailed costing analysis of these infections, particularly in Canada, is lacking. We assessed incidence and cost of complex SSIs following primary hip/knee arthroplasty in patients across Alberta. We then evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an evidence-based decolonization protocol in patients prior to hip/knee arthroplasty in Alberta, compared with standard care (no decolonization) using decision analysis. Among 24,667 operations, 1.04% developed a complex SSI. The most common causative pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (38%). Mean first-year costs for the infected and non-infected cohort were CAN $95,321 (IQR49,623 – 120,636) and $19,893 (IQR12,610 – 19,723), respectively. The decolonization protocol was associated with lower risk of complex SSI and cost savings of $153/person. A decolonization protocol should be considered for implementation in Alberta to reduce infections and save costs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207