Hospital-Acquired Infections in the Age of Antimicrobial Resistance and Smart Surveillance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) continue to be one of the biggest problems for modern healthcare systems, and the problem is getting worse because antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is on the rise. Antibiotics that used to work are quickly losing their effectiveness, which is giving rise to highly adaptable bacteria in clinical settings and turning routine procedures into high-risk situations. This publication examines the intersection of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) within the framework of smart surveillance—digital, data-driven systems engineered to identify, predict, and disrupt the spread of infections in real time. We examine the historical development of infection surveillance, analyze the epidemiological burden and resistance mechanisms contributing to a covert pandemic, and assess emerging technologies such as electronic health record integration, machine-learning analytics, genomic sequencing, and Internet of Things (IoT) sensor networks. These new ideas give us new ways to prevent infections before they happen, but they also bring up difficult moral, legal, and social problems about privacy, fairness, and governance. We contend that intelligent surveillance should be integrated into comprehensive infection prevention frameworks and antimicrobial stewardship initiatives to establish resilient hospitals. By combining predictive analytics with basic IPC procedures, ethical monitoring, and giving workers more autonomy, healthcare organizations may turn passive surveillance into active defense. In the end, winning the war against HAIs will depend not just on cutting-edge technology, but also on how it is used with care, honesty, and openness.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".