Risk Factors for and Outcomes Associated with Clinical Isolates of <i>Escherichia coli</i> and <i>Klebsiella</i> Species Resistant to Extended‐Spectrum Cephalosporins among Patients Admitted to Canadian Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical features associated with Gram-negative bacterial isolates with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-mediated resistance identified in Canadian hospitals is largely unknown. The objective of the present study was to determine the demographics, risk factors and outcomes of patients with ESBL- or AmpC-mediated resistant organisms in Canadian hospitals. METHODS: Patients with clinical cultures of Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species were matched with patients with a similar organism but susceptible to third-generation cephalosporins. Molecular identification of the AmpC or ESBL was determined using a combination of polymerase chain reaction and sequence analysis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with becoming a case. RESULTS: Eight Canadian hospitals identified 106 cases (ESBL/AmpC) and 106 controls. All risk factors identified in the univariate analysis as a predictor of being an ESBL/AmpC cases at the 0.20 P-value were included in the multivariate analysis. No significant differences in outcomes were observed (unfavourable responses 17% versus 15% and mortality rates 13% versus 7%, P not significant). Multivariate logistic regression found an association of becoming an ESBL/AmpC case with: previous admission to a nursing home (OR 8.28, P=0.01) or acute care facility (OR 1.96, P=0.03), length of stay before infection (OR 3.05, P=0.004), and previous use of first-generation cephalosporins (OR 2.38, P=0.02) or third-generation cephalosporins (OR 4.52, P=0.01). Appropriate antibiotics were more likely to be given to controls (27.0% versus 13.3%, P=0.05) and number of days to appropriate antibiotics was longer for cases (median 2.8 days versus 1.2 days, P=0.05). CONCLUSION: The importance of patient medical history, present admission and antibiotic use should be considered for all E coli or Klebsiella species patients pending susceptibility testing results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".