MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122600353

A Prospective Multisite Observational Study Incorporating Bacterial Fluorescence Information Into the UPPER/LOWER Wound Infection Checklists.

2020· article· en· W3122600353 on OpenAlexaff
Rosemary Hill, Kevin Woo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityLions Gate HospitalVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCyanProspective cohort studyWound infectionFluorescenceSurgeryInternal medicinePathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The UPPER/LOWER infection checklists look for signs and symptoms of local/superficial infection (UPPER) and deep infection (LOWER) to assist clinicians in identifying and distinguishing between these infection levels, facilitating appropriate treatment. The presence of 3 or more UPPER or LOWER criteria is indicative of infection. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the utility of incorporating real-time bacterial fluorescence imaging into the UPPER/LOWER checklists to enhance identification of infection in wounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, multisite study assessed 43 chronic wounds. Infection was identified in 27 wounds (62.8%) according to the UPPER/LOWER checklist criteria; 3 wounds were positive for both UPPER and LOWER infection, 1 wound was positive for LOWER infection only, and 23 wounds were positive for UPPER infection only. Fluorescence images were taken to detect wounds with high bacterial loads (> 104 CFU/g), indicated by the presence of red or cyan fluorescence. RESULTS: Red or cyan fluorescence from bacteria was observed in 88% of wounds (n = 38); all wounds positive for UPPER/LOWER were also positive for bacterial fluorescence. In 18 (41.9%) of the 43 wounds, fluorescence information added a third check to the UPPER/LOWER threshold, turning a negative diagnosis into a positive diagnosis of infection. Bacterial load was detected in 22/27 wounds swabbed, 17 of which exhibited heavy growth; in all wounds with detectable bacterial load, fluorescence signal was observed (positive predictive value = 100%, negative predictive value = 83%). Using microbiology as ground truth, inclusion of fluorescence information as an additional item in the checklists increased the sensitivity of the UPPER/LOWER checklist from 82% to 95%. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the UPPER/LOWER checklist and fluorescence imaging work in a complementary manner to effectively identify wounds with high bacterial burden at the point-of-care.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207