MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129334506

Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: Frequency and antibiotic resistance in healthy adults

2012· article· en· W2129334506 on OpenAlexaff
Farzin Khorvash, Fatemeh Abdi, Behrooz Ataei, Hamed Fattahi Neisiani, Hessam H. Kashani, Tahmineh Narimani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Medical Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClindamycinStaphylococcus aureusAntibioticsCoccus (insect)CarriagePenicillinVancomycinAntibiotic resistanceAntibiotic sensitivityRifampicinAnterior naresMicrobiologyMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusBacteriaTuberculosisPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the frequency of nasal carriage and antibiotic susceptibility profile of Staphylo- coccus aureus (S. aureus) among healthy young adults who referred to premarital screening clinics. METHODS: A cross-sectional study including 158 adults (79 men and 79 women) was conducted at health care centers, Isfahan, Iran, during February-August 2008. Nasal swabs from anterior nares of healthy adults were cultured and tested for S. aureus. Antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed on Muller-Hinton Agar using disc diffusion method according to Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). RESULTS: The prevalence of S. aureus nasal carriage was 26.6%. Resistance to penicillin had the highest rate. The isolates demon- strated higher sensitivity to vancomycin, clindamycin, and rifampicin. In addition, twenty-two S. aureus isolates had intermediate re- sistance to antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of implementing strategies to eliminate nasal carriage of S. aureus to pre- vent the spread of infection is highlighted. Effective strategies in this field are thus strongly recommended.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Medical SciencesSame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207