MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113814185 · doi:10.1086/342292

Laboratory Characterization of Methicillin‐Resistant<i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>in Canadian Hospitals: Results of 5 Years of National Surveillance, 1995–1999

2002· article· en· W2113814185 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrew E. Simor, Marianna Ofner-Agostini, Elizabeth Bryce, Allison McGeer, Shirley Paton, Michael R. Mulvey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth CanadaHealth Sciences CentreVancouver General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusOutbreakEpidemiologyStaphylococcus aureusclone (Java method)Molecular epidemiologyStaphylococcal infectionsGenotypePulsed-field gel electrophoresisMicrobiologyMeticillinMedicineBiologyVirologyInternal medicineBacteriaGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two thousand seven hundred eighty single-patient, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates collected between January 1995 and December 1999 at 17 tertiary care hospital sites across Canada were characterized by phenotypic and genotypic techniques. Six clonal types, as defined by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, comprised 87% of all isolates and were labeled Canadian (C) MRSA-1 through -6. CMRSA-1 was the most prevalent clonal type, representing 45% of all MRSA. CMRSA-2 was indistinguishable from the New York clone and was more likely to be associated with community acquisition. CMRSA-3 was more likely to cause an infection, compared with the other CMRSA types. CMRSA-4 was indistinguishable from epidemic (E) MRSA-16 from the United Kingdom. Both CMRSA-5 and -6 occurred primarily in single-site, multiyear outbreaks. This study confirms that the epidemiology of MRSA in Canada is evolving, but most isolates at this time appear to belong to one of a small number of epidemic clones.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations92
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207