MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411413469 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.24.01249

Deep Infections After Open and Closed Fractures

2025· article· en· W4411413469 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Polmear, Jennifer E. Hagen, Gregory M. Schrank, Marilyn Heng, Francesc Marcano-Fernández, Kyle J. Jeray, Mark J. Gage, Gerard P. Slobogean, Sheila Sprague, Terrie Vasilopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalOpen fractureStaphylococcus aureusMicrobiological cultureSurgeryInfection rateSurgical site infectionInternal medicineOrthopedic surgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the culture and speciation results of patients with surgical site infection (SSI) from the PREPARE and Aqueous-PREP studies from the PREP-IT Investigators. METHODS: Patients with suspected SSI underwent collection of deep or organ tissue samples for culture. The culture positivity rate was estimated as a percentage along with the exact binomial 95% confidence interval (CI). Microbial species were reported as percentages. Comparisons between open and closed fractures were conducted with the Z-test for proportions. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Among the 2 primary studies, a total of 484 cases (defined as an anatomic fracture area; some patients had multiple fractures, which were each defined as a case if they developed an infection) had culture samples taken from deep or organ tissue. The culture positivity rate was 96.7% (95% CI, 94.7% to 98.0% [468 of 484 cases]). There were no significant differences (p = 0.507) in culture positivity between open fractures (97.2% [95% CI, 94.5% to 98.6%]; 273 of 281 cases) and closed fractures (96.1% [95% CI, 92.4% to 98.0%]; 195 of 203 cases). There was information on microbial species in 84.4% (395) of 468 cases. For patients with positive cultures, 43.3% (171 of 395 cases) were polymicrobial infections. Open fractures (47.8% [111 of 232 cases]), compared with closed fractures (36.8% [60 of 163 cases]), were more likely to be polymicrobial (p = 0.029). Staphylococcus aureus microbes (methicillin-sensitive S. aureus, methicillin-resistant S. aureus, and coagulase-negative S. aureus) accounted for 43.3% (462 of 1,066) of all positive cultures. The median time to infection was 58.5 days (95% CI, 49.0 to 67.0 days). The median time to infection was not significantly different in cases of open fractures (61.0 days [95% CI, 51.0 to 71.0 days]) compared with closed fractures (54.0 days [95% CI, 43.0 to 67.0 days]) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.72 to 1.12]). SSIs associated with gram-negative bacteria had a shorter median time to infection at 46.0 days (95% CI, 36.0 to 58.0 days) compared with SSIs not associated with gram-negative bacteria at 70.0 days (95% CI, 56.0 to 88.0 days) (HR, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.55 to 2.03]). There was also a shorter median time to infection for patients with polymicrobial infections (47.0 days [95% CI, 38.8 to 52.1 days]) compared with patients with monomicrobial infections (78.6 days [95% CI, 57.2 to 86.8 days]) (HR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.49]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SSI, tissue samples yielded high rates of microbial culture results. There was a higher proportion of gram-negative organisms in open fractures. Gram-negative infections were also associated with earlier time to infection. Clinicians should not hesitate to take deep-tissue culture samples in patients with suspected SSI and should be prepared to encounter polymicrobial infections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207