First National Survey of Antibiotic Susceptibility of the Bacteroides fragilis Group: Emerging Resistance to Carbapenems in Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The antibiotic susceptibility rates of 363 clinical Bacteroides fragilis group isolates collected from 17 centers in Argentina during the period from 2006 to 2009 were as follows: piperacillin-tazobactam, 99%; ampicillin-sulbactam, 92%; cefoxitin, 72%; tigecycline, 100%; moxifloxacin, 91%; and clindamycin, 52%. No metronidazole resistance was detected in these isolates during this time period. Resistance to imipenem, doripenem, and ertapenem was observed in 1.1%, 1.6%, and 2.3% of B. fragilis group strains, respectively. B. fragilis species showed a resistance profile of 1.5% to imipenem, 1.9% to doripenem, and 2.4% to ertapenem. This is the first report of carbapenem resistance in Argentina. The cfiA gene was present in 8 out of 23 isolates, all of them belonging to the B. fragilis species and displaying reduced susceptibility or resistance to carbapenems (MICs ≥ 4 μg/ml). Three out of eight cfiA-positive isolates were fully resistant to carbapenems, while 5 out of 8 isolates showed low-level resistance (MICs, 4 to 8 μg/ml). The inhibition by EDTA was a good predictor of the presence of metallo-β-lactamases in the fully resistant B. fragilis strains, but discrepant results were observed for low-level resistant isolates. B. fragilis was more susceptible to antimicrobial agents than other Bacteroides species. Bacteroides vulgatus species was the most resistant to ampicillin-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam, and B. thetaiotaomicron/ovatus strains showed the highest level of resistance to carbapenems, with an unknown resistance mechanism. B. vulgatus and the uncommon non-Bacteroides fragilis species were the most resistant to moxifloxacin, showing an overall resistance rate of 15.1%.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".