Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in horses and humans who work with horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of nasal colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in horses and horse personnel. DESIGN: Prospective prevalence study. SAMPLE POPULATION: 972 horses and 107 personnel from equine farms in Ontario, Canada and New York state. PROCEDURE: Nasal swab specimens were collected from horses and humans on farms with (targeted surveillance) and without (nontargeted surveillance) a history of MRSA colonization or infection in horses during the preceding year. Selective culture for MRSA was performed. Isolates were typed via pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and antibiograms were determined. RESULTS: MRSA was isolated from 46 of 972 (4.7%) horses (0/581 via nontargeted surveillance and 46/391 [12%] via targeted surveillance). Similarly, MRSA was isolated from 14 of 107 (13%) humans (2/41 [5%] from nontargeted surveillance and 12/66 [18%] from targeted surveillance). All isolates were subtypes of Canadian epidemic MRSA-5, an uncommon strain in humans. All isolates were resistant to at least 1 antimicrobial class in addition to beta-lactams. On all farms with colonized horses, at least 1 human was colonized with an indistinguishable subtype. For horses, residing on a farm that housed > 20 horses was the only factor significantly associated with MRSA colonization. For humans, regular contact with > 20 horses was the only identified risk factor. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results confirm a reservoir of colonized horses on a variety of farms in Ontario and New York and provide evidence that 1 MRSA strain is predominantly involved in MRSA colonization in horses and humans that work with horses.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".