MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7047591929

Guidelines for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults in Ireland

2013· other· en· W7047591929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) · 2013
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSuperconducting Materials and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineIrishPneumoniaExpert opinionHealth professionalsWorking groupScientific evidenceMEDLINEHealth careInfection control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Strategy for the Control of Antimicrobial Resistance in Ireland (SARI) national committee established
\na working group to produce national guidelines on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia.
\nNominations were invited from relevant professional bodies. Membership of the working group is listed
\nin Appendix 1. The committee first met in January 2009 and agreed terms of reference. A draft document
\nwas sent for consultation in June 2010 to a range of professional groups (Appendix 2).
\nSeveral international evidence-based guidelines for prevention of nosocomial pneumonia have been
\npublished (BTS, ATS, Canadian, IDSA/SHEA). The terms of reference of the working group were to review
\nthese existing guidelines, update where new evidence was available and produce a single guideline for
\nprevention of VAP in adults for use by Irish healthcare professionals working primarily in the acute care
\nsector. However, most of the recommendations for prevention of VAP are applicable to mechanically
\nventilated patients based in the community.
\nThis document represents the expert opinion of the working group following a literature review and
\nconsultative process. It should be acknowledged that no attempt was made to grade the quality of the
\nevidence that was used to develop these recommendations.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library)Same topicSuperconducting Materials and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207