MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099361100

TITLE: Bleach versus Accelerated Hydrogen Peroxide for Clostridium difficile and Norovirus Disinfection: A Review of the Clinical Effectiveness and Safety

2010· article· en· W7099361100 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridium difficileBleachNorovirusInfection controlHealth careDisinfectantPsychological interventionClostridioides
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nosocomial infections are a major cause of patient morbidity and mortality, and result in significant costs to the healthcare system. 1-3 Clostridium difficile and noroviruses are commonly occurring pathogens in healthcare facilities, and infection control programs are often put in place to limit the spread of these and other infections. 4 An estimated 20 % to 40 % of nosocomial infections are attributed to cross-infection by way of the hands of health care personnel, and contamination of the hands can occur by either touching patients or contaminated environmental surfaces. 1 As such, environmental cleaning is one of the interventions used to control the spread of infectious organisms in healthcare facilities. A Canadian study found that the products used in cleaning and disinfection of C. difficile in acute care hospitals varies considerably across the country, and that two products that are often used for disinfection in these facilities are bleach (sodium hypochlorite) and accelerated hydrogen peroxide. 5 The relative effectiveness of these disinfectants in controlling pathogens should be considered in developing policy for environmental cleaning. Given that these disinfectants must be used by hospital workers who are subjected to frequent exposure, as well as near patients whose health is already compromised, relative safety must also be a consideration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.338
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCell Image Analysis Techniques→French-language works237,207→