Prevalence and Mechanisms of Macrolide Resistance in Invasive and Noninvasive Group B Streptococcus Isolates from Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Macrolide resistance has been demonstrated in group B streptococcus (GBS), but there is limited information regarding mechanisms of resistance and their prevalence. We determined these in GBS obtained from neonatal blood cultures and vaginal swabs from pregnant women. Of 178 isolates from cases of neonatal GBS sepsis collected from 1995 to 1998, 8 and 4.5% were resistant to erythromycin and clindamycin, respectively, and one isolate showed intermediate penicillin resistance (MIC, 0.25 microg/ml). Of 101 consecutive vaginal or rectal/vaginal isolates collected in 1999, 18 and 8% were resistant to erythromycin and clindamycin, respectively. Tetracycline resistance was high (>80%) among both groups of isolates. Of 32 erythromycin-resistant isolates, 28 possessed the erm methylase gene (7 ermB and 21 ermTR/ermA) and 4 harbored the mefA gene; one isolate harbored both genes. One isolate which was susceptible to erythromycin but resistant to clindamycin (MIC, 4 microg/ml) was found to have the linB gene, previously identified only in Enterococcus faecium. The mreA gene was found in all the erythromycin-resistant strains as well as in 10 erythromycin-susceptible strains. The rate of erythromycin resistance increased from 5% in 1995-96 to 13% in 1998-99, which coincided with an increase in macrolide usage during that time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".