Hospital- and Community-Based Surveillance of Methicillin-Resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus:</i> Previous Hospitalization is the Major Risk Factor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for the acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in our community. DESIGN: This study used a cross-sectional design to assess patients colonized or infected with MRSA. PATIENTS: The study population consisted of residents of London, Ontario, Canada, who were identified as MRSA-positive for the first time in 1997. SETTING: All acute- and chronic-care hospitals, long-term healthcare facilities, and community physicians' offices in the city of London participated in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence of MRSA in the community, risk factors for acquisition, especially previous hospitalization over a defined period, and strain type were evaluated. RESULTS: In 1997, 331 residents of London were newly identified as MRSA-positive, representing an annual incidence of 100/100,000 persons (95% confidence interval, 88.8-110.7). Thirty-one (9.4%) individuals were not healthcare-facility patients in the previous month, and 11 (3.3%), 10 (3.0%), and 6 (1.8%) individuals had no such contact in the previous 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. One hundred seventy-seven strains, including five of the isolates from patients with no healthcare-facility contact in the previous year, were typed. One hundred sixty (90.3%) of these isolates, including all typed strains from patients with no healthcare facility contact, belonged to a single clone. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that the incidence of MRSA is higher than previously reported and that hospital contact is the single most important risk factor for the acquisition of MRSA in our community. Screening for MRSA in previously hospitalized patients at the time of hospitalization may reduce nosocomial spread and indirectly reduce the incidence of MRSA in the community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".