MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906418114 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/pcvw6

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SURGICAL SITE INFECTIONS AMONG SOLID ORGAN TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS: A SCOPING REVIEW PROTOCOL

2024· article· en· W6906418114 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Observational studyGrey literatureHealth careOrgan transplantationProtocol (science)Inclusion (mineral)Intervention (counseling)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: To map the available evidence regarding the direct costs associated with the treatment of surgical site infections among adult solid organ transplant recipients. Introduction: Surgical site infections (SSIs) compromise the recovery of solid organ transplant recipients and are a significant source of morbidity and mortality. Additionally, SSIs are directly associated with increased healthcare costs and pose a challenge to the sustainability of healthcare systems. Inclusion criteria: This review will include scientific studies involving adult solid organ transplant recipients (aged 18 and over) who received grafts from deceased donors, where the costs related to the occurrence of SSIs have been reported. Observational studies such as exploratory studies, case reports, case series, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, case-control studies, and before-and-after studies will be included. Intervention studies, including pilot studies, quasi-experimental studies, and randomized controlled trials, will also be eligible. Methods: Electronic databases such as PubMed/Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, EconLit, and the Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) will be searched from their inception without language restrictions. The search strategy has been developed using controlled vocabulary and keywords identified through the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework. Grey literature will also be systematically searched in databases like CAPES Banco de Teses e Dissertações, Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD), the Canadian Dissertation and Thesis Portal, and Google Scholar. The search will be conducted in November 2024. The research question was formulated based on the PCC mnemonic: P - Solid organ transplant recipients; C - Direct costs; C - SSIs treated in the hospital setting. Keywords: Transplante de órgãos; Custos hospitalares; Infecção de ferida cirúrgica.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4500.205

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.311 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)Same topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207