MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149036430 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciu961

Editorial Commentary: Antibiotic Self-treatment of Travelers' Diarrhea: Helpful or Harmful?

2015· editorial· en· W2149036430 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley A. Connor, Jay S. Keystone

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2015
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntibioticsDiarrheaCarriageTraveler's diarrheaAntibiotic resistancePopulationAntimicrobialColonizationIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthMicrobiologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, numerous studies have focused on the importance of imported drug-resistant bacteria, especially extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae [1]. Although initial reports were related to travelers who sought healthcare in developing countries, it is now clear that healthy returned travelers are at risk for colonization with ESBL-PE and potentially spreading these into the community, especially to those whose underlying health problems put them at risk for severe infection due to antibiotic-resistant organisms.Travel,travelers’diarrhea(TD), and antibiotic use independent of travel have all been shown to be associated with carriage of ESBL-PE; however, previous studies have not looked at these risk factors in concert, particularly the role of antibiotic self-treatment of TD. In this edition, Kantele and colleagues present the results of an excellent prospective study that provides very compelling evidence that antimicrobials increase a traveler’s risk of colonization by ESBLPE [2]. In their study of 430 Finnish travelers, 21% became colonized by ESBL-PE. Remarkably, 80% of travelers who selftreated TD with antibiotics in the Indian subcontinent were found to be colonized with ESBL-PE. They found that geographic region, occurrence of TD, and the use of antimicrobials for TD were independent risk factors associated with acquisition of ESBL-PE, and call for caution in the reflexive use of antibiotics for mild or moderate TD. Unsurprisingly and quite reasonably, the authors’ primary concern is that colonized travelers might contribute to the spread of resistant intestinal bacteria to the population at large in developed countries. In reality, however, one can see why a traveler who spends a considerable amount of money on an exotic international trip would want to carry and use an antibiotic for self-treatment for rapid relief of TD. Furthermore, the widespread problem in developing countries of counterfeit drugs, and the use of injections not infrequently administered with unsterile equipment to treat TD, would be a strong impetus for travelers to carry an antibiotic for self-treatment. A survey of healthcare providers in tourist resorts showed that 20%–86% of travelers would have undergone an invasive procedure (infusions, injections, and diagnostic venipuncture) if they had presented with diarrhea and fever [3]. “So what?” you say. A global World Health Organization survey has shown that 10%–75% of injections administered in developing countries may be given with unsterile equipment [4].

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)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.367 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207