First Case of Septicemia Due to a Strain Belonging to Enteric Group 58 ( <i>Enterobacteriaceae</i> ) and Its Designation as <i>Averyella dalhousiensis</i> gen. nov., sp. nov., Based on Analysis of Strains from 20 Additional Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When enteric group 58 was first described as a distinct new group of Enterobacteriaceae in 1985, there were only five known human isolates: four from wounds and one from feces. In 1996, we investigated the first blood isolate of enteric group 58, a case of sepsis in a 33-year-old woman receiving total parenteral nutrition. Fifteen additional clinical isolates have since been identified at CDC, including several recognized from a collection of "unidentified" strains dating back to 1973. All strains were characterized with a standard set of 49 biochemical tests used for Enterobacteriaceae, and the results were analyzed to determine phenotypic relatedness and best taxonomic fit. Antibiograms were determined as a taxonomic tool. Original identifications provided by submitting laboratories encompassed a wide variety of Enterobacteriaceae, including 14 species in eight genera, the most common being Enterobacter spp., Salmonella spp., Serratia spp., Kluyvera spp., or Escherichia spp. Enteric group 58 strains have been most frequently isolated from traumatic injuries, fractures, and wounds and rarely from feces. Defining its clinical significance and distinguishing infection from colonization requires further study, but our case report indicates that serious systemic infection can occur. The vernacular name enteric group 58 was used from 1985 to 2004. In this paper, we formally name it Averyella dalhousiensis gen. nov., sp. nov., on the basis of its unique phenotype and its unique 16S rRNA gene sequence. These data indicate that enteric group 58 is not closely related to any of the existing genera or species of Enterobacteriaceae. The type strain is designated CDC 9501--97, and a phenotypic definition is given based on all 21 strains.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".