MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220988056 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irac012.179

551 Age Does Not Predict Admission Culture Positivity

2022· article· en· W4220988056 on OpenAlexaff
Anastasiya Ivanko, Kathleen S Romanowski, Angela Man, Joyce E Wall, Najib M Allabadi, Marc G. Jeschke, Alisa Savetamal, John Schulz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsTD Bank Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrineUrinary systemPneumoniaBlood cultureStaphylococcus aureusBurn woundInternal medicineMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusDemographicsSurgeryAntibioticsWound healingMicrobiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Burn patients are susceptible to wound infections, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, and bloodstream infections. With rising rates of community colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO), the colonization of wounds with commensal organisms is more concerning than ever, which is particularly true in patients with recent hospital admissions, advanced age, or institutional living situations. The purpose of this study was to examine if age was a factor in obtaining admission cultures and if older patients were more likely to have positive cultures. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted involving burn patients admitted at three ABA verified burn centers from January 2016 - December 2017. Data collected included demographics, burn injury, and cultures obtained within 24 hours of admission. Patients were divided into 10-year age increments from 20 to ≥ 80 years old. Data analysis was conducted using Chi-square, Fisher Exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results A total of 1615 patients (mean age 45.9± 17.7 years, 1145 males (70.9%), mean burn size (TBSA) 9.6± 14.2%) were analyzed. Admission cultures obtained were: 656 (40.6%) wound cultures, 196 (12.1%) urine cultures, 139 (8.6%) blood cultures, and 1445 (89.5%) Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) screen. In all age groups, there were no significant differences between patients who had wound cultures (p = 0.97), blood cultures (p = 0.39), or MRSA screening (p = 0.9). As patients aged, they were more likely to have urine cultures obtained (p=0.01); - 23% of patients >80 years old had urine cultures ordered at admission compared to 8.6-16.9% of younger patients. Positive results by age group: wound cultures (p= 0.09), urine cultures (p= 0.16), blood cultures (0.10), MRSA screen (p=0.98). In looking at increased exposure to MDROs prior to admission by age groups, patients in the 61–70year (8.33%), 71–80-year (5.68%), and >80-year (6.67%) age groups were more likely to have a recent (within 30 days) hospitalization (p = 0.02), but there was no significant difference in pre-hospital institutionalization (i.e., prison, skilled nursing facility) by age group (p = 0.06). With a recent hospitalization, MRSA screening was more likely to be positive (11.3% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.05). Conclusions All burn patients are susceptible to infections. Urine cultures were more likely to be obtained in older burn injured patients who are 80 years of age or older. There was no significant difference in culture positivity by age. Apart from MRSA screen positivity, there was no increased risk of urine, wound, or blood culture positivity with recent hospitalization or institutionalization. The utility of screening all patients for MDROs on admission should be considered for patients 20 years of age and older.

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.348 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207