Prevalence of Antimicrobial-Resistant Pathogens in Canadian Hospitals: Results of the Canadian Ward Surveillance Study (CANWARD 2008)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 5,282 bacterial isolates obtained between 1 January and 31 December 31 2008, inclusive, from patients in 10 hospitals across Canada as part of the Canadian Ward Surveillance Study (CANWARD 2008) underwent susceptibility testing. The 10 most common organisms, representing 78.8% of all clinical specimens, were as follows: Escherichia coli (21.4%), methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA; 13.9%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (10.3%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (7.1%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (6.0%), coagulase-negative staphylococci/Staphylococcus epidermidis (5.4%), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA; 5.1%), Haemophilus influenzae (4.1%), Enterococcus spp. (3.3%), Enterobacter cloacae (2.2%). MRSA comprised 27.0% (272/1,007) of all S. aureus isolates (genotypically, 68.8% of MRSA were health care associated [HA-MRSA] and 27.6% were community associated [CA-MRSA]). Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing E. coli occurred in 4.9% of E. coli isolates. The CTX-M type was the predominant ESBL, with CTX-M-15 the most prevalent genotype. MRSA demonstrated no resistance to ceftobiprole, daptomycin, linezolid, telavancin, tigecycline, or vancomycin (0.4% intermediate intermediate resistance). E. coli demonstrated no resistance to ertapenem, meropenem, or tigecycline. Resistance rates with P. aeruginosa were as follows: colistin (polymyxin E), 0.8%; amikacin, 3.5%; cefepime, 7.2%; gentamicin, 12.3%; fluoroquinolones, 19.0 to 24.1%; meropenem, 5.6%; piperacillin-tazobactam, 8.0%. A multidrug-resistant (MDR) phenotype occurred frequently in P. aeruginosa (5.9%) but uncommonly in E. coli (1.2%) and K. pneumoniae (0.9%). In conclusion, E. coli, S. aureus (MSSA and MRSA), P. aeruginosa, S. pneumoniae, K. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and Enterococcus spp. are the most common isolates recovered from clinical specimens in Canadian hospitals. The prevalence of MRSA was 27.0% (of which genotypically 27.6% were CA-MRSA), while ESBL-producing E. coli occurred in 4.9% of isolates. An MDR phenotype was common in P. aeruginosa.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".