A comparison of risk factors associated with community-associated methicillin-resistant and -susceptible<i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>infections in remote communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this case-control study, cases [community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA), n=79] and controls [community-associated methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (CA-MSSA), n=36] were defined as a laboratory-confirmed infection in a patient with no previous hospital-associated factors. Skin and soft tissue were the predominant sites of infection, both for cases (67.1%) and controls (55.6%). Most of the cases (79.7%) and controls (77.8%) were aged <30 years. Investigations did not reveal any significant statistical differences in acquiring a CA-MRSA or CA-MSSA infection. The most common shared risk factors included overcrowding, previous antibiotic usage, existing skin conditions, household exposure to someone with a skin condition, scratches/insect bites, and exposure to healthcare workers. Similar risk factors, identified for both CA-MRSA and CA-MSSA infections, suggest standard hygienic measures and proper treatment guidelines would be beneficial in controlling both CA-MRSA and CA-MSSA in remote communities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".