Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli in Canada 2009-10: results from the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the occurrence and molecular mechanisms associated with carbapenemases in carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative isolates from Canadian cases. METHODS: Twenty hospital sites across Canada submitted isolates for a 1 year period starting 1 September 2009. All Enterobacteriaceae with MICs ≥ 2 mg/L and Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with MICs ≥ 16 mg/L of carbapenems were submitted to the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) where carbapenem MICs were confirmed by Etest and isolates were characterized by PCR for carbapenemase genes, antimicrobial susceptibilities, PFGE and plasmid isolation. RESULTS: A total of 444 isolates (298 P. aeruginosa, 134 Enterobacteriaceae and 12 A. baumannii) were submitted to the NML of which 274 (61.7%; 206 P. aeruginosa, 59 Enterobacteriaceae and 9 A. baumannii) met the inclusion criteria as determined by Etest. Carbapenemase genes were identified in 30 isolates: bla(GES-5) (n = 3; P. aeruginosa), bla(KPC-3) (n = 7; Enterobacteriaceae), bla(NDM-1) (n = 2; Enterobacteriaceae), bla(VIM-2) and bla(VIM-4) (n = 8; P. aeruginosa) bla(SME-2) (n = 1; Enterobacteriaceae) and bla(OXA-23) (n = m9; A. baumannii). PFGE identified a cluster in each of Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii corresponding to isolates harbouring carbapenemase genes. Three KPC plasmid patterns (IncN and FllA) were identified where indistinguishable plasmid patterns were identified in unrelated clinical isolates. CONCLUSIONS: Carbapenemases were rare at the time of this study. Dissemination of carbapenemases was due to both dominant clones and common plasmid backbones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".