In Vitro Activity of New Cephalosporins vs Streptococcus pneumoniae from the Canadian Bacterial Surveillance Network: 2008–2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 2008 and 2011, 6,895 Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates were submitted to the Canadian Bacterial Surveillance Network and underwent in vitro susceptibility testing. Fifteen percent of S. pneumoniae isolates were collected from pediatric patients (0-15 years old), 48.6 % of isolates were collected from adults between 16 and 64 years of age, and 36.1 % from adults aged ≥65 years; age data were not available for 11 patients. Forty-five percent of S. pneumoniae isolates were recovered from sterile specimens, and 55 % of isolates were from nonsterile specimens. Overall, 0.4 % of isolates were resistant to penicillin, 0.4 % to ceftriaxone, 3 % to amoxicillin, 25 % to erythromycin, and 13 % to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; 6.6 % of isolates were multidrug resistant (MDR). Among MDR isolates, resistance rates exceeded 95 % for erythromycin, tetracycline, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The MIC90 of cethromycin, ceftaroline, and ceftobiprole against MDR isolates were 0.12, 0.25, and 1 mg/L, respectively. Ceftaroline, the active form of the prodrug ceftaroline fosamil, exhibited potent in vitro activity against the tested S. pneumoniae including all 456 multidrug-resistant strains. No ceftaroline-resistant isolates were identified.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".