MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066364915 · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.176575

Neisseria gonorrhoeae Treatment Failure and Susceptibility to Cefixime in Toronto, Canada

2013· article· en· W2066364915 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vanessa Allen, Leo Mitterni, Christine Seah, Anuradha Rebbapragada, Irene Martín, Colin Lee, Heather Siebert, Lynn Towns, Roberto G. Melano, Donald E. Low

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCefiximeMedicineNeisseria gonorrhoeaeInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyGonorrheaCephalosporinAntibioticsMicrobiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Although cephalosporins are the cornerstone of treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections, cefixime is the only oral antimicrobial option. Increased minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) to cefixime have been identified worldwide and have been associated with reports of clinical failure. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of clinical treatment failure of N. gonorrhoeae infections associated with the use of cefixime. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION: A retrospective cohort study of culture-positive N. gonorrhoeae infections at a single sexual health clinic in Toronto, Canada, that routinely performs test of cure. The cohort comprised N. gonorrhoeae culture-positive individuals identified between May 1, 2010, and April 30, 2011, treated with cefixime as recommended by Public Health Agency of Canada guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cefixime treatment failure, defined as the repeat isolation of N. gonorrhoeae at the test-of-cure visit identical to the pretreatment isolate by molecular typing and explicit denial of reexposure. RESULTS: There were 291 N. gonorrhoeae culture-positive individuals identified. Of 133 who returned for test of cure, 13 were culture positive; 9 patients were determined to have experienced cefixime treatment failure, involving urethral (n = 4), pharyngeal (n = 2), and rectal (n = 3) sites. The overall rate of clinical treatment failure among those who had a test of cure was 6.77% (95% CI, 3.14%-12.45%; 9/133). The rate of clinical failure associated with a cefixime MIC of 0.12 μg/mL or greater was 25.0% (95% CI, 10.69%-44.87%; 7/28) compared with 1.90% (95% CI, 0.23%-6.71%; 2/105) of infections with cefixime MICs less than 0.12 μg/mL, with a relative risk of 13.13 (95% CI, 2.88-59.72; P < .001). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The rate of clinical failure following treatment of N. gonorrhoeae infections with cefixime was relatively high at a Toronto clinic and was associated with elevated MICs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations216
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207