Bacteria Isolated from Conspecific Bite Wounds in Norway and Black Rats: Implications for Rat Bite–Associated Infections In People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bites associated with wild and domestic Norway and black rats (Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus) may have a variety of health consequences in people. Bite-related infections are among the most significant of these consequences; however, there is little data on the infectious agents that can be transmitted from rats to people through biting. This is problematic because without an accurate understanding of bite-related infection risks, it is difficult for health professionals to evaluate the adequacy of existing guidelines for empirical therapy. The objectives of this study were to increase our knowledge of the bacterial species associated with rat bites by studying bite wounds that wild rats inflict upon one another and to review the literature regarding rat bites and bite wound management. Wild Norway and black rats (n=725) were trapped in Vancouver, Canada, and examined for bite wounds in the skin. All apparently infected wounds underwent aerobic and anaerobic culture, and isolated bacteria were identified. Thirty-six rats had bite wound-related infections, and approximately 22 different species of bacteria belonging to 18 genera were identified. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common isolate; however, the majority of infections (72.5%) were polymicrobial. Rat bites can result in infection with a number of aerobic and anaerobic Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. In humans, these wounds are best managed through early recognition and cleansing. The benefit of prophylactic antimicrobial treatment is debatable, but given the deep puncturing nature of rodent bites, we suggest that they should be considered a high risk for infection. Antibiotics selected should include coverage for a broad range of bacterial species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".