A Multinational Survey of Risk Factors for Infection with Extended‐Spectrum β‐Lactamase–Producing Enterobacteriaceae in Nonhospitalized Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae are increasing in frequency and are associated with high mortality rates. Circulation of CTX-M-type ESBLs in the community is of particular concern, because it may confound standard infection-control measures. METHODS: We analyzed the results of epidemiologic studies of infection caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae in nonhospitalized patients from 6 centers in Europe, Asia, and North America. Risk factors for infection with an ESBL-producing organism were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 983 patient-specific isolates were reviewed (890 [90.5%] of which were Escherichia coli, 68 [6.9%] of which were Klebsiella species, and 25 [2.5%] of which were Proteus mirabilis); 339 [34.5%] of the isolates produced ESBLs. CTX-M types were the most frequent ESBLs (accounting for 65%). Rates of co-resistance to ciprofloxacin among ESBL-producing isolates were high (>70%), but significant variation was seen among centers with respect to rates of resistance to gentamicin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Similar risk factors for infection with an ESBL-producing organism were found in the different participating centers. Significant risk factors, identified by multivariate analysis, were recent antibiotic use, residence in a long-term care facility, recent hospitalization, age 65 years, and male sex (area under the receiver-operator characteristic [ROC] curve, 0.80). However, 34% of ESBL-producing isolates (115 of 336 isolates) were obtained from patients with no recent health care contact; the area under the ROC curve for the multivariate model for this group of patients was only 0.70, which indicated poorer predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Community-acquired ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae are now prevalent worldwide, necessitating international collaboration. Novel approaches are required to adequately address issues such as empirical treatment for severe community-acquired infection and infection control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".