Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Widespread interest in the appropriate use of antibiotics has led to the publication of anti-infective guidelines for a variety of infectious diseases. Objective: To determine adherence to Ontario’s 1997 Anti-infective Guidelines for Community-Acquired Infections. Methods: This study was a prescriber-blinded, concurrent review of prescriptions over a 2-month period at a university-affiliated family practice clinic. Patients who received antibiotic prescrip-tions for an infection specified in the guidelines were enrolled. The initial antibiotic regimen (agent, dose, frequency, and duration) was evaluated for adherence to the recommendations. Health records were reviewed over a subsequent 6-week period to determine the occurrence of repeat contact with a health care provider, the outcome of the infection, and antibiotic-related complications. Results: Of the 144 initial regimens assessed, 135 (94%) involved first-, second-, or third-line agents listed in the guidelines; 114 (79%) involved first-line agents. One hundred and five (73%) of the regimens were adherent to the guidelines in terms of agent, dose, frequency, and duration. Among the 98 patients with repeat contact with a health care provider, there was a higher incidence of antibiotic-related complications in association with nonadher-ent therapy (5 of 26 cases [19%]) than with adherent therapy (2 of 72 cases [3%]) (p = 0.013). There were no differences in outcomes of the diagnosed infections. Conclusions: Adherence to recommendations for antibiotic therapy was high in this family practice clinic. A larger prospective study is necessary to confirm the lower rate of antibiotic-associated complications observed with adherent therapy. Key words: antibiotics, guideline adherence, community-acquired infections, family practice
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.524 | 0.277 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".