Surveillance Of Antimicrobials Use In Emergency Medicine Institute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Antibiotics have had a profound impact on humanity’s health, by improving our ability to prevent, cure and reduce the transmission of many infectious diseases. It is widely known, that the unnecessary or inappropriate use of antibiotics, occurs up to 50% of prescriptions only in the United States and Canada. Fortunately all negative impact on the human health can be roughly imagined. Material and methods: For this study we used the data of a six-year (2009-2014) period in the Emergency Medicine Institute and their main subdivisionswhich show the consumption dynamics of antibacterials use in natural indexes. Results: The total annual medium consumption of antimicrobials was registered as the following: ICD 1796.98 DDD/1000, SSOTD 566.12 DDD/1000and EMI 584.05DDD/1000, with the parenteral to enteral forms share of respectively 94.67% to 5.33%, 85.62% to 14.38% and 83.52% to 16.48%. Five fromnine main groups: beta-lactam antibacterials, penicilins, other beta-lactam, aminoglycoside, other antibacterials and quinolone antibacterials registeredaround 90% of all antibiotics consumption. Comparatively to Australian hospitals and hospitals other worldwide countries in EMI consumption perDDD/1000 was lower: by 3.39 and 2.22 times for tetracyclines, by 5.1 and 4.63 for beta-lactam and penicilins, as well as by 2.55 and 1.63 for macrolidesand lincosamides. Conclusions: The obtained data about the dynamics of antibacterials consumption in EMI and their main departments, in comparison with hospitalsfrom other worldwide countries, represents important arguments and reserves for improving quality treatment, planning, rational prescription andutilization of antibiotics in hospitals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".