Challenges in the Control of Gonorrhea in South America and the Caribbean: Monitoring the Development of Resistance to Antibiotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objective: The objective of this study was to ascertain the antimicrobial susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates from 6 South American and 13 Caribbean countries participating in the Gonococcal Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (GASP) from 1990 to 1999. Study: A GASP network of laboratories was launched in the Americas and the Caribbean during the 1990s. Standardized methods and interpretative criteria were established for the isolation of N. gonorrhoeae, strain identification, and determination, and quality control of antimicrobial susceptibility. Results: Two countries (Argentina and Uruguay) maintained continuous surveillance during the study period. Some countries gathered data periodically and several others were unable to initiate antimicrobial surveillance as a result of lack of resources. The percentage of penicillin-resistant N. gonorrhoeae isolated in the region over the decade varied considerably (1.0–11.9% carried chromosomal resistance and 17.9–38.8% produced β-lactamase) with an overall trend to declining numbers of penicillin-resistant isolates. For tetracycline, 7.4% to 36.3% carried chromosomal resistance, whereas 12.0% to 27.4% carried plasmid-mediated resistance. There were no reports of ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates, although N. gonorrhoeae with decreased susceptibility to ciprofloxacin and azithromycin as well as spectinomycin-resistant isolates were identified in some countries. Surveillance of the antimicrobial susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates between 1990 and 1999, by the Gonococcal Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (GASP) network (South America and the Caribbean), demonstrated high percentages of resistance to penicillin and tetracycline and lower numbers of isolates with resistance to spectinomycin or reduced susceptibility to ciprofloxacin and azithromycin.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".