Timing of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis administration: Complexities of analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The timing of prophylactic antibiotic administration is a patient safety outcome that is recurrently tracked and reported. The interpretation of these data has important implications for patient safety practices. However, diverse data collection methods and approaches to analysis impede knowledge building in this field. This paper makes explicit several challenges to quantifying the timing of prophylactic antibiotics that we encountered during a recent study and offers as suggested protocol for resolving these challenges. Challenges: Two clear challenges manifested during the data extraction process: the actual classification of antibiotic timing, and the additional complication of multiple antibiotic regimens with different timing classifications in a single case. A formalized protocol was developed for dealing with incomplete, ambiguous and unclear documentation. A hierarchical coding system was implemented for managing cases with multiple antibiotic regimens. Interpretation: Researchers who are tracking prophylactic antibiotic timing as an outcome measure should be aware that documentation of antibiotic timing in the patient chart is frequently incomplete and unclear, and these inconsistencies should be accounted for in analyses. We have developed a systematic method for dealing with specific problematic patterns encountered in the data. We propose that the general adoption of a systematic approach to analysis of this type of data will allow for cross-study comparisons and ensure that interpretation of results is on the basis of timing practices rather than documentation practices.
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 | 0.288 | 0.624 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".