Risk factors for ciprofloxacin resistance in reported <i>Campylobacter</i> infections in southern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a case-control study examining risk factors for ciprofloxacin resistance in Campylobacter infections that were reported in 2004 and 2005 in two health regions in southern Alberta. The study questionnaire included questions about recent travel and antibiotic use, food consumption frequency, use of household and personal hygiene products with antibacterial agents, contact with animals, and potential misuse of antibiotics. Of the 210 patients who participated, 31.0% had ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter infections. Foreign travel was the strongest predictor of resistance. Surprisingly, possession of antibiotics for future use was identified as a risk factor for resistance. We also examined the potential for participation bias and resistance misclassification to affect the resulting multivariable models. Participation bias appears to have had a substantial effect on the model results, but the estimated misclassification effect due to the use of different ciprofloxacin susceptibility testing methods was only slight.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".