Global in vitro activity of tigecycline and comparator agents: Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial 2004–2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial (TEST) is a global antimicrobial susceptibility surveillance study which has been ongoing since 2004. This report examines the in vitro activity of tigecycline and comparators against clinically important pathogens collected globally between 2004 and 2013. METHODS: Antimicrobial susceptibility was determined using guidelines published by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. The Cochran Armitage Trend Test was used to identify statistically significant changes in susceptibility between 2004 and 2013. RESULTS: Among the Enterobacteriaceae susceptibility was highest to the carbapenems [imipenem 97.1% (24,655/25,381), meropenem 97.0% (90,714/93,518)], tigecycline (97.0%, 115,361/118,899) and amikacin (96.9%, 115,200/118,899). Against Acinetobacter baumannii the highest rates of susceptibility were for minocycline (84.5%, 14,178/16,778) and imipenem (80.0%, 3,037/3,795). The MIC90 for tigecycline was 2 mg/L. 40% (6,743/16,778) of A. baumannii isolates were multidrug-resistant. Enterococci were highly susceptible to tigecycline and linezolid (>99%); vancomycin resistance was observed among 2% of Enterococcus faecalis (325/14,615) and 35% of Enterococcus faecium (2,136/6,167) globally. 40% (14,647/36,448) of Staphylococcus aureus were methicillin-resistant while 15% (2,152/14,562) of Streptococcus pneumoniae were penicillin-resistant. Against S. aureus and S. pneumoniae susceptibility to linezolid, vancomycin, and tigecycline was ≥99.9%. Globally, 81% (331/410) of statistically significant susceptibility changes during the study period were decreases in susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: Amikacin, the carbapenems, and tigecycline were active against most gram-negative pathogens while linezolid, tigecycline, and vancomycin retained activity against most gram-positive pathogens collected in TEST during 2004-2013.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".