MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W178455565

Antimicrobial resistance trends in common urinary pathogens.

2001· article· en· W178455565 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tony Mazzulli

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaphylococcus saprophyticusAntimicrobialMedicineCiprofloxacinAntibiotic resistanceEmpiric therapyAmpicillinUrinary systemMicrobiologyTrimethoprimDrug resistanceIntensive care medicineStaphylococcus aureusInternal medicineAntibioticsStaphylococcusBiologyBacteria
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the second most common infectious presentations in community practice. Over 90% of UTIs are due to a single species. Escherichia coli alone accounts for 80% to 90% of UTIs. In young, healthy women, Staphylococcus saprophyticus accounts for approximately 5% to 15% of cases of uncomplicated cystitis, but is rarely associated with pyelonephritis or complicated infections. Other gram-negative species comprise the majority of the remaining causes of UTIs. Because initial antimicrobial therapy for UTIs is generally empiric, it is important to account for local susceptibility trends when selecting an antimicrobial agent. In Canada, resistance among community-acquired (as opposed to nosocomial or hospital-acquired) isolates of E. coli varies depending on the antimicrobial agent being tested. Ampicillin has the lowest activity against community-acquired E.coli isolates, with resistance rates ranging from 23% to 41%. Trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) resistance rates range from 8.4% to 19.2%, while the resistance to the fluoroquinolone ciprofloxacin has remained at 0% to 1.8% since its introduction over 10 years ago. Current studies suggest that there are no regional differences in resistance rates among community-acquired urinary tract pathogens across Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicUrinary Tract Infections ManagementFrench-language works237,207