MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7074084203

Microbiological surveillance and parenteral antibiotic use in a critical care unit

2000· article· en· W7074084203 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCefazolinEnterobacter cloacaeAntibiotic resistanceAntibioticsAntimicrobialCiprofloxacinCeftriaxonePseudomonas aeruginosaPneumonia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate parenteral antibiotic utilization and bacterial resistance patterns in a critical care unit (CrCU). DESIGN: Descriptive, prospective audit of infection site, culture and antimicrobial susceptibility test results, parenteral antibiotic usage and duration, total antibiotic acquisition costs, and length of stay. SETTING: A 17-bed medical-surgical CrCU in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Metropolitan Toronto. PATIENTS: Two hundred and fifty-eight patients admitted to the CrCU between May 1995 and April 1996 who received antimicrobial therapy. RESULTS: The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were cefazolin (47%, 1098 g), gentamicin (33%,141 g) and ceftriaxone (20%, 255 g). The most common indications for antimicrobial therapy included surgical prophylaxis (34%) and pneumonia (35%). The following organisms were isolated from patients treated with antibiotics: Staphylococcus aureus (26%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13%), enterococci (12%), Haemophilus influenzae (11%), Escherichia coli (11%), Enterobacter cloacae (8%) and other Gram-negative bacilli (19%). Only 9% of Gram-negative bacilli were resistant to aminoglycosides, 3% were resistant to ciprofloxacin and no extended-spectrum beta-lactamases or imipenem-resistance were detected. No vancomycin-resistant enterococci and only two methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic use during the audit appeared appropriate for the specific clinical indications. Low levels of bacterial resistance were detected during the audit.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207