Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients cannot afford sterile dressings. In St John, New Brunswick, clean dressings have been used instead of sterile dressings for years, with no apparent ill effects. No previous studies have compared the sterility and cost of clean versus sterile dressing materials. OBJECTIVES: THE GOALS OF THE PRESENT STUDY WERE TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: how much more sterile are sterile dressings than clean dressings; and how much does this extra sterility cost? METHODS: Sterility and cost of sterile gauze, panty liners, sanitary napkins, diapers and Coban tape (3M, USA) were compared. Samples, 2 cm x 2 cm in size, were cut out of each material under aseptic conditions, and delivered to the microbiology laboratory in sterile urine containers. The samples were then cultured and organisms were identified using conventional means. RESULTS: The cost for one month, using one 20 cm x 5 cm wound dressing daily, was calculated and compared with panty liners ($2.43), sanitary napkins ($5.55), diapers ($9.39) and Coban tape ($0.66), which were much cheaper than sterile dressings ($16.50). How sterile were the dressings? None of the 20 sanitary napkins grew bacteria, one of the 20 panty liners grew bacteria (coagulase-negative Staphylococcus), two of 20 sterile dressings grew bacteria (one coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and one nonhemolytic Streptococcus), 15 of 20 diapers grew bacteria (all bacillus) and two of five Coban rolls grew bacteria (one bacillus and one coagulase-negative Staphylococcus). CONCLUSION: The panty liners, sanitary napkins and Coban tape studied were cheaper than, and had a comparible sterility with, the sterile gauze examined.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".