Empiric antibiotics for peripartum bacteremia: A chart review from a quaternary Canadian centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of empiric antibiotic protocols for peripartum bacteremia at a quaternary institution by describing incidence, microbial epidemiology, clinical source of infection, susceptibility patterns, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of peripartum patients with positive blood cultures between 2010 and 2018. RESULTS: The incidence of peripartum bacteremia was 0.3%. The most cultured organisms were Escherichia coli (51, 26.7%), Streptococcus spp. (52, 27.2%), and anaerobic spp. (35, 18.3%). Of the E. coli cases, 54.9% (28), 19.6% (10), and 19.6% (10) were resistant to ampicillin, first- and third-generation cephalosporins, respectively. Clinical sources of infection included intra-amniotic infection/endometritis (115, 67.6%), upper and/or lower urinary tract infection (23, 13.5%), and soft tissue infection (8, 4.7%). Appropriate empiric antibiotics were prescribed in 137 (83.0%) cases. There were 7 ICU admissions (4.2%), 18 pregnancy losses (9.9%), 9 neonatal deaths (5.5%), and 6 cases of neonatal bacteremia (3.7%). CONCLUSION: Peripartum bacteremia remains uncommon but associated with maternal morbidity and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Current empiric antimicrobial protocols at our site remain appropriate, but continuous monitoring of antimicrobial resistance patterns is critical given the presence of pathogens resistant to first-line antibiotics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".