MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W54917183 · doi:10.2310/6620.2008.07094

Postoperative Topical Antimicrobial Use

2008· article· en· W54917183 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vaneeta M. Sheth, Sarah Weitzul

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNail Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntimicrobialBacitracinNeomycinDermatologyPolymyxin BAllergic contact dermatitisPolymyxinMupirocinPopulationAtopic dermatitisIncidence (geometry)SurgeryContact dermatitisAllergyAntibioticsStaphylococcus aureusMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusImmunologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allergic contact dermatitis associated with topical antimicrobial agents is an increasing problem in the postoperative wound care period. We reviewed the topical antimicrobial agents most commonly used postoperatively in North America and Europe, examined the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis from each agent, and provided guidelines for the use of topical antimicrobials on closed and open wounds in the postoperative period. Neomycin was the most common cause of allergic contact dermatitis both in the general patch-tested population (11%) and in the postsurgical population. Bacitracin was also a common culprit, although at a lower rate (8%). There is a risk of co-reactivity between these two agents. Polymyxin B and mupirocin were not significant allergens. The rate of postoperative infectious complications in dermatologic surgery (1-2%) was similar to the rate of allergic contact dermatitis from topical antimicrobials (1.6-2.3%). We concluded that for closed wounds, the use of topical neomycin postoperatively should be avoided. White petrolatum is an efficacious and cost-effective alternative for closed wounds. For open wounds, topical antimicrobials that do not contain neomycin should be recommended.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations46
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicNail Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207