Factors associated with methicillin-resistant versus methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus pseudintermedius infection in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MRSP) and methicillin-susceptible S pseudintermedius (MSSP) infections in dogs. DESIGN: Multicenter case-control study. ANIMALS: Dogs with MRSP infections were matched, by hospital, with 2 MSSP controls, with the infections occurring immediately before and after the case infection. PROCEDURES: Signalment, historical, clinical, treatment, and outcome data were documented. Conditional logistic regression was performed. A manual stepwise backward elimination procedure was used to build the multivariable model. RESULTS: 56 case and 112 control dogs were enrolled. Pyoderma was the most common infection type in both groups. In the final multivariable model, systemic administration of antimicrobials within 30 days prior to infection was significantly associated with an MRSP versus an MSSP infection (OR, 9.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.59 to 27.53). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The association of prior antimicrobial administration and MRSP infection indicated the potential impact of routine antimicrobial use in veterinary medicine on antimicrobial resistance and the need for prudent use of these important drugs. Mortality rate was not significantly different between MRSP and MSSP infections; the lack of a significant difference suggested that MRSP was inherently no more virulent than MSSP, provided the infection was properly diagnosed and appropriate treatment was started. Basic concepts such as prudent antimicrobial use and early diagnosis through timely submission of appropriate culture specimens therefore can be important measures to try to reduce the impact of this pathogen.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".