MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065617918 · doi:10.1097/olq.0b013e3181aad9df

Antimicrobial Resistance in Gonorrhea: The Influence of Epidemiologic and Laboratory Surveillance Data on Treatment Guidelines: Alberta, Canada 2001–2007

2009· article· en· W2065617918 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sabrina S. Plitt, Curtiss Boyington, Karen Sutherland, Marguerite Lovgren, Peter Tilley, Ron Read, Ameeta E. Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueSexually Transmitted Diseases · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGonorrheaMedicineCefiximeNeisseria gonorrhoeaeInterquartile rangeMen who have sex with menEpidemiologyAntibiotic resistanceCiprofloxacinEnvironmental healthInternal medicineFamily medicineAntibioticsSyphilisCeftriaxoneMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of surveillance for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Neisseria gonorrhoeae over a 7-year period on treatment guidelines in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: AMR testing data from gonorrhea cases were combined with demographic and risk behavior information collected through surveillance to describe trends and sequential changes to treatment guidelines. RESULTS: Ciprofloxacin resistant gonorrhea (CRG) cultures rose from 1.4% in 2001 to 27.7% in 2007. Of 200 CRG cases, 90% were men, 77% white, median age 29 years (interquartile range: 23-29 years) and 60% were men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2005, only 1 of 28 cases did not fit into travel or MSM categories and treatment guidelines were changed to recommend oral cefixime as the preferred agent in MSM or those with a travel history. Continuous rise in CRG together with locally acquired cases among heterosexuals resulted in ciprofloxacin being removed as a recommended agent for gonorrhea in 2007. CONCLUSIONS: Our data underscores the importance of surveillance in monitoring trends in AMR in gonorrhea so that timely changes to treatment recommendations can be made in response to changing epidemiology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexually Transmitted DiseasesSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207