An investigation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in people and pets in the same household with an infected person or infected pet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence of concurrent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization in people and pets in the same household with a person or pet with an MRSA infection and to compare MRSA isolates by use of molecular techniques. DESIGN: 2 cross-sectional evaluations conducted concurrently. SAMPLE POPULATION: 24 dogs, 10 cats, and 56 humans in part 1 and 21 dogs, 4 cats, and 16 humans in part 2 of the study. PROCEDURES: In both parts of the study, nasal swab specimens were collected from humans and nasal and rectal swab specimens were collected from household pets. Selective culture for MRSA was performed, and isolates were typed via pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and spa typing. Households were defined as positive when MRSA was isolated from at least 1 person (part 1) or 1 pet (part 2). RESULTS: In part 1, 6 of 22 (27.3%) households were identified with MRSA colonization in a person. In these households, 10 of 56 (17.9%) humans, 2 of 24 (8.3%) dogs, and 1 of 10 (10%) cats were colonized with MRSA. In part 2, only 1 of 8 households was identified with MRSA colonization in a pet. Most MRSA isolates obtained from humans and pets in the same household were indistinguishable by use of PFGE. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The high prevalence of concurrent MRSA colonization as well as identification of indistinguishable strains in humans and pet dogs and cats in the same household suggested that interspecies transmission of MRSA is possible. Longitudinal studies are required to identify factors associated with interspecies transmission.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".