MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595882434 · doi:10.25011/cim.v30i4.1777

Investigation of sources of potential bias in laboratory surveillance for anti-microbial resistance

2007· article· en· W1595882434 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kevin B. Laupland, Terry Ross, Johann Pitout, Deirdre L. Church, Daniel B. Gregson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortMedicineCiprofloxacinAntibiotic resistanceAntimicrobialPopulationCohort studyCeftriaxoneInternal medicineVeterinary medicineAntibioticsBiologyEnvironmental healthMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: There are a number of biases that may influence the validity of laboratory-based surveillance for antimicrobial resistance. Our objective was to evaluate the potential magnitude of bias in reporting of etiologic agents and their resistance rates associated with inclusion of multiple patient samples and non-random timing and location of sampling. METHODS: All urine cultures submitted to a regional laboratory in the Calgary Health Region during 2004 and 2005 were studied. Comparisons were then made using either the overall cohort or different subgroups compared with the "reference" or gold standard population where only the first isolate per patient per year per species was included. RESULTS: Overall 56,897 organisms were cultured at > or =104 cfu/mL from 53,548 samples from 35,890 patients; 39,835 organisms were included in the reference cohort. Escherichia coli was reported in 37,246 (65.5%) of overall cohort and 28,257 (70.9%) of the reference cohort. Therefore, the overall cohort resulted in a relative underestimation of the importance of E. coli as the principal cause of urinary tract infections by 8%. Similarly, reported rates of resistance to antimicrobial agents most notably ciprofloxacin [6,480/52,544 (12.3%) vs. 2,647/37,086 (7.1%)], gentamicin [2,991/48,070 (6.2%) vs. 1,567/34,608 (4.5%)], and ceftriaxone [1,737/44,922 (3.9%) vs. 889/32,745 (2.7%)] were higher in the overall than in the reference cohorts. There were large differences in both the distribution of organisms and rates of resistance associated with sampling during different times of the day, week, and year as well as from acute care hospitals and outpatient clinics (P< or =0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reports from laboratory-based surveillance studies may be biased depending on the population studied and method of sampling employed. Care must be taken in interpreting results of surveillance studies that do not protect from these major sources of bias.

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)0.152
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.365
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1520.365
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations32
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207