MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W637092117 · doi:10.1155/2015/830415

Urinary Tract Infection Diagnosis and Response to Therapy in Long‐Term Care: A Prospective Observational Study

2015· article· en· W637092117 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Daley, Carla Penney, Susan Wakeham, Glenda Compton, Aaron J. McKim, Judy O’Keefe, Brendan J. Barrett, Lindsay E. Nicolle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. John’s Health Sciences CentreMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyUrinary systemMedicineIntensive care medicineTerm (time)Prospective cohort studyLong-term careInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria among residents of long-term care (LTC) facilities is high, and is a source of inappropriate antibiotic prescription. OBJECTIVE: To establish symptoms and signs associated with a positive urine culture, and to determine whether antibiotic therapy is associated with functional improvement. METHODS: A total of 101 LTC patients were prospectively observed after submission of urine for culture. RESULTS: The culture positivity rate was consistent with the expected asymptomatic bacteriuria rate. Change in mental status and male sex were associated with culture positivity. Treatment decisions were not consistent with culture results. Treatment did not lead to improvement in activities of daily living scores at two days or seven days. DISCUSSION: Significant growth cannot be well predicted based on clinical variables; thus, the decision to submit urine is somewhat arbitrary. Because urine culture testing and treatment does not lead to functional improvement, restricting access to the test may be reasonable. CONCLUSION: Urine culture testing in LTC facilities does not lead to functional improvement.

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)0.001
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical MicrobiologySame topicUrinary Tract Infections ManagementFrench-language works237,207