Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria causing urinary tract infection (UTI) has evolved over several decades as antimicrobial exposure has repeatedly been followed by emergence of resistance. Older populations in the community, long-term care facilities, or acute care facilities have an increased prevalence of resistant bacteria isolated from UTI. Resistant isolates are more frequent in long-term care populations than the community. Resistant isolates include common uropathogens, such as Escherichia coli or Proteus mirabilis, and organisms with higher levels of intrinsic resistance, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Providencia stuartii. Isolation of resistant organisms is consistently associated with prior antimicrobial exposure and higher functional impairment. The increased likelihood of resistant bacteria makes it essential that a urine specimen for culture and susceptibility testing be obtained before instituting antimicrobial therapy. Therapy for the individual patient must be balanced with the possibility that antimicrobial use will promote further resistance. Antimicrobial therapy should be avoided unless there is a clear clinical indication. In particular, asymptomatic bacteriuria should not be treated with antimicrobials. Where symptoms are mild or equivocal, urine culture results should be obtained before initiating therapy. This permits selection of specific therapy for the infecting organism and avoids empiric, usually broad-spectrum, therapy. Where empirical therapy is necessary, prior infecting organisms should be isolated, and recent antimicrobial therapy, as well as regional or facility susceptibility patterns, should be considered in antimicrobial choice. Where empirical therapy is used, it should be reassessed 48 to 72 hours after initiation, once pretherapy cultures are available.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".