Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Community‐Associated Methicillin‐Resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>: A Perspective for Canadian Health Care Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1.0 PREAMBLE 2.0 METHODOLOGY 3.0 DEFINITIONS 3.1 General definitions 3.2 Operational definition of CA-MRSA 3.3 Definition limitations 4.0 EPIDEMIOLOGY 4.1 The rise of CA-MRSA 4.2 CA-MRSA in Canada 4.3 Origin of CA-MRSA and its ability to disseminate 4.4 Populations at risk 4.5 Transmission 5.0 MICROBIOLOGY 5.1 S aureus and MRSA 5.2 Virulence factors 5.3 Nomenclature of strains 5.4 Resistance to non-beta-lactam antibiotics 5.4.1 Clindamycin 5.4.2Erythromycin 5.4.3Quinolones 5.5 Differences between CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA 6.0 MANAGEMENT 6.1 Diagnostic evaluation 6.1.1When to suspect CA-MRSA 6.1.2When to obtain cultures 6.2 Treatment 6.2.1 Minor SSTIs (folliculitis, furuncles and small abscesses without cellulitis) 6.2.2 Empirical therapy of non-lifethreatening infections other than minor skin infections, potentially due to CA-MRSA 6.2.3 Empirical therapy of lifethreatening infections potentially due to CA-MRSA 6.2.4 Confirmed non-life-threatening CA-MRSA infections other than minor skin infections 6.2.5 Confirmed CA-MRSA lifethreatening infections 6.2.6 Adjunctive therapy 7.0 SCREENING AND DECOLONIZATION 7.1 Screening for CA-MRSA 7.2 Decolonization 7.3 Guidelines for the use of decolonization regimens 8.0 POPULATION SURVEILLANCE 8.1 Population surveillance program for CA-MRSA 8.2 Laboratory support 9.0 PREVENTION 9.1 Prevention of transmission of CA-MRSA 9.1.1Role of the individual 9.1.2Role of health care practitioners 9.1.3Role of health authorities 9.2 Prevention in specific settings 9.2.1 Households with CA-MRSA infection 9.2.2 Daycare centres and schools 9.2.3 Sports settings 9.2.4 Pets and other animals 9.2.5 Correctional facilities or shelters 9.2.6 Newborn care facilities 10.0 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 10.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".