A retrospective study of the diagnostic and treatment practices of health care professionals for patients receiving out-patient intravenous antibiotic therapy for cellulitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if there were a significant number of clients with cellulitis that were diagnosed with an infection other than cellulitis, or whose treatment was misdiagnosed and, to determine where discrepancies may have occurred. The research questions addressed were: (1) What is the proportion of CITP clients who initially have been diagnosed with an infection other than cellulitis? (2) What is the proportion of clients with cellulitis who were not trialed on oral antibiotic therapy prior to receiving parenteral antibiotic therapy? (3) What is the proportion of clients with cellulitis who were not prescribed the appropriate oral antibiotic? (4) What is the proportion of clients with cellulitis who did not remain on oral antibiotic therapy for a specific period of time prior to their doctor requesting they be placed on intravenous antibiotic therapy? (5) Does the incidence of cellulitis increase with certain underlying medical conditions, age group or gender? The research designwas a retrospective study that reviewed the computer database/charts located at The Winnipeg Community Intravenous Therapy Program. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".