MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014749167 · doi:10.1086/653007

Surveillance Data on Outbreaks of<i>Clostridium</i><i/><i>difficile</i>Infection in Ontario, Canada, in 2008–2009

2010· letter· en· W2014749167 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dylan R. Pillai, Jean Longtin, Donald E. Low

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Public HealthCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridium difficileMedicineOutbreakClostridium InfectionsMicrobiologyClostridiaceaeClostridiumVirologyAntibioticsBacteriaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor—We read with great interest the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP) data presented by Miller et al [1], who reported that the prevalence of the North American pulsed-field type 1 (NAP1) strain of Clostridium difficile was ∼20% in Ontario, Canada. During the period from 2008 through 2009, our public health laboratory conducted surveillance of all outbreak-related C. difficile identified in the province of Ontario as part of government legislation to document patient safety. Hospitals in Ontario are now required to report their incidence of C. difficile infection on a monthly basis to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care [2]. An outbreak was defined as ⩾6 cases of C. difficile infection per ward per month (Table 1). Isolates were analyzed to determine C. difficile pulsotypes and antibiotic susceptibility, for detection of toxin genes, and for genotyping of antibiotic resistance markers. A total of 155 C. difficile isolates from 16 distinct institutional outbreaks of C. difficile infection were identified. In contrast to the CNISP data presented by Miller et al [1], we found that the predominant outbreak isolate was NAP1 strain, with a prevalence of 53% (Figure 1). Furthermore, our data contrasted with the data collected from passive surveillance conducted in Ontario and presented by Martin et al [3], who reported that the NAP2 strain was identified as the most common strain in Ontario, with NAP1 being the second most common strain. NAP1 was the outbreak strain for all institutional outbreaks investigated during this surveillance. A large number of sporadic pulsotypes were given an “arbitrary” classification because their pattern did not conform to previously described NAP strains. The NAP2 strain was completely absent from outbreaks. Therefore, we believe that the NAP1 strain is more transmissible or may have a fitness advantage resulting in outbreaks, compared with other pulsotypes that may be causing sporadic cases of C. difficile infection [4]. NAP1 isolates and non-NAP1 isolates were susceptible to metronidazole; however, compared with the non-NAP1 isolates, the NAP1 isolates uniformly elaborated binary toxin, were more likely to be resistant to moxifloxacin (P < .05, χ2 test), and were less likely to be susceptible to ampicillin (P<.05 χ2 test). Sequencing of the quinolone resistance-determining region of DNA gyrase demonstrated that the gyrA mutation T82I (P < .05, χ2 test) and the gyrBmutationD426N(P <.05, χ2 test) were significantly associated with newergeneration fluoroquinolone resistance. In conclusion, although differences in NAP1 prevalence may be explained by selection criteria and temporal differences in sample collection, we believe that the NAP1 strain is present in a far greater number of cases of C. difficile infection than was reported by Miller et al [1] in Ontario and is still single-handedly responsible for driving institutional outbreaks of C. difficile infection [4]. We thank the clinical and research staff members of the hospital-acquired infection unit of the Public Health Laboratory (Toronto), the Public Health units, and infection control staff at the institutions for coordinating the samples collected in this surveillance. Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: no conflicts. Clostridium difficile pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) types (155 isolates) identified in 16 institutional outbreaks in 2008 and 2009 in Ontario, Canada. Arbitrary implies that the PFGE pattern did not correspond to previously described North American pulsotypes (NAPs). NoGr, no growth; Untyp, untypeable. Demographics of Patients Whose Specimens Were Analyzed during Clostridium difficile Infection Outbreaks in Ontario, Canada, in 2008 and 2009

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207