MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011355767 · doi:10.1017/s0950268810000221

Characterization of antimicrobial resistance, molecular and phage types of<i>Salmonella enterica</i>serovar Typhi isolations

2010· article· en· W2011355767 on OpenAlexaffabout
Walter Demczuk, Richard A. Finley, Céline Nadon, Ashley Spencer, Matthew W. Gilmour, L.‐K. Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsed-field gel electrophoresisNalidixic acidMicrobiologyBiologySalmonella entericaMultiple drug resistanceSerotypeSalmonella typhiCiprofloxacinAntibiotic resistancePhage typingSalmonellaPopulationVirologyDrug resistanceBacteriaEscherichia coliGenotypeGeneticsAntibioticsMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isolation rates in Canada of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi increased from 0.29 to 0.55 isolations/100,000 population during 2000-2006. Although no ciprofloxacin resistance was detected, nalidixic acid resistance increased from 41% to 80%. Multidrug-resistant S. Typhi represented 18% of the strains tested. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis of 222 isolates resulted in 91 distinct patterns clustering into four major genetic similarity groups. The five most frequently occurring PFGE patterns accounted for 46% of the isolates. Drug-resistant isolates predominantly occurred in one PFGE similarity group. There were 39 phage types identified in 826 isolates analysed with 60% described by five phage types; 134 were untypable. The phage types associated with multidrug resistance were phage types 53, B1, D1, E1, E9, G3 and M1. Improved integration of epidemiological and laboratory case data will facilitate the protection of public health in Canada during an era of increasing travel and globalization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and InfectionSame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207