Antimicrobial Susceptibility Among Bacterial Isolates from ICU and Non-ICU Settings and Different Age Groups: Results from the Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the tigecycline evaluation and Surveillance trial (t.e.S.t.), isolates were collected from centers in North America. In vitro activity was assessed for isolates collected in 2006 using ClSi guidelines and ClSi or FDA interpretive criteria. Data were analyzed according to intensive care unit (iCU) or non-iCU location and age group (18-64 years and > 65 years).Rates of mRSA in 2006 were higher among isolates from patients aged >65 years (52.0%) than younger patients (48.4%) and from non-iCU settings (48.0%) than from the iCU (45.3%). Rates of vancomycin-resistant E. faecium, multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter spp. (resistant to levofloxacin and amikacin as well as the carbapenems and/or third generation cephalosporins), and eSbl-producing K. pneumoniae among isolates collected from the iCU were 70.7%, 5.8%, and 16.6%, respectively.Tigecycline, linezolid and vancomycin were active against all isolates of S. aureus, including mRSA, from both settings and the two age groups. Among E. faecium, >95% of isolates were susceptible to linezolid, and tigecycline maintained MIC(90)s of 0.06-0.12 mg/l. Against Acinetobacter spp., the most active antimicrobials were tigecycline and minocycline irrespective of age group or patient setting (MIC(90)s 2 and 8 mg/l, respectively). Percentage susceptibility off K. pneumoniae was >90% against tigecycline, imipenem, meropenem, cefepime and amikacin for isolates from both age groups and settings. Against eSbl-producing K. pneumoniae, imipenem (88.9%-96.4%) and tigecycline (85.1%-100%) demonstrated the highest rates of activity. tigecycline demonstrated excellent activity against clinically relevant resistant organisms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".