MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412044086 · doi:10.1177/17571774251350783

Intraocular surgical site infection surveillance in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

2025· article· en· W4412044086 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeremy Li, Myrna Dyck, Natalie Gibson, Molly Blake, Elly Trepman, John M. Embil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infection Prevention · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntraocular surgeryIncidence (geometry)Disease controlGlaucomaOutbreakOptometryOphthalmologySurgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surveillance for surgical site infections (SSIs) after intraocular surgery may enable the detection of outbreaks and reveal opportunities for quality improvement. The reported incidence of SSIs after intraocular surgery varies widely, and there are no benchmark studies for SSI surveillance based on surveillance case definitions. We performed surveillance for SSIs after intraocular surgery at a regional ophthalmology surgical center in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, from April 2014 to March 2023. Intraocular infection was defined according to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Healthcare Safety Network definition ( eye infection , other than conjunctivitis ). We defined an SSI as an intraocular infection occurring within 1 year after intraocular surgery, in contrast with the CDC definition of 30 or 90 days for other types of surgery. There were 96,322 intraocular operations performed during the 9-year surveillance period. The incidence of SSI for all types of intraocular surgery was 0.03% (3.0 infections per 10,000 operations), with substantially greater incidence after glaucoma valve implant surgery. We found that the incidence of SSI, identified using surveillance definitions, is lower than reported previously. This report provides benchmark data that may be useful for ophthalmological SSI surveillance initiatives at other institutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Infection PreventionSame topicOcular Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207