Are fluoroquinolone-susceptible isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae really susceptible? A comparison of resistance mechanisms in Canadian isolates from 1997 and 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of efflux and amino acid substitutions in ParC and GyrA in Canadian clinical isolates of fluoroquinolone-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae with levofloxacin MICs of 1 mg/L collected before the introduction of the respiratory fluoroquinolones (1995-1997) and after 7 years of use (2003). METHODS: Quinolone resistance determining regions of parC and gyrA were sequenced for 111 clinical isolates collected from 1995 to 1997 and 665 isolates collected in 2003. Efflux was assessed using a reserpine agar dilution method. RESULTS: No isolates exhibited efflux. No significant increase in isolates harbouring amino acid substitutions was observed over time (0.9% in 1995-1997 to 2.1% in 2003, P = 0.32). However, the proportion of isolates with a ciprofloxacin MIC = 2 mg/L and a levofloxacin MIC = 1 mg/L versus ciprofloxacin MIC = 1 mg/L and a levofloxacin MIC = 1 mg/L increased over time (3.6% to 6.5%, P = 0.0021). CONCLUSIONS: No increase in prevalence of first-step parC mutations was observed among all fluoroquinolone-susceptible clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae with levofloxacin MICs of 1 mg/L after the introduction of the respiratory fluoroquinolones; however, fluoroquinolones appear to be selecting for isolates with elevated ciprofloxacin MICs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".