Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The rapidly changing antimicrobial susceptibility ofN. gonorrhoeaesince the introduction of antibiotics has created challenges in gonorrhoea control. Antimicrobial resistance has regularly appeared and expanded with every release of new classes of antibiotics for gonorrhoea. Methods The Gonococcal Antimicrobial Surveillance Programme (GASP) has been documenting the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance in gonorrhoea since 1992 and has informed treatment guidelines. Results Sixty two countries participated in GASP in varying degrees including the extend of specific antimicrobials tested for resistance in 2010. There are high rates of resistance inN. gonorrhoeaeto penicillin and quinolones. There are 36 countries reporting increasing minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) to Cefixime (≥ 0.25 μg/mL) or Ceftriaxone (≥ 0.125 μg/mL). Treatment failures to Ceftriaxone were reported in Japan, Austria, Australia, Canada, France, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, UK and South Africa. Majority of reports is from developed countries. This is only the tip of the global health burden as surveillance data from resource-constrained settings are scarce. Spectinomycin and azithromycin resistance are monitored in limited countries. Brunei, China, Mongolia and Russia reported decreased susceptibility to spectinomycin. Resistance to azithromycin has been identified in some European countries, US and Chile. Azithromycin resistance remains well below the 5% threshold in most countries. Conclusions Treatment options for gonorrhoeae is dwindling. In the short term, options for treatment will include increasing dosage, using intramuscular or intravenous route and multiple doses of Ceftriaxone; use of alternative medication (e.g. gentamycin), and combination therapies. In the long term there is a need to develop newer classes of antibiotic. There is a need to ensure rational drug use and strengthen antimicrobial resistance monitoring in gonorrhoea including detection and management of treatment failure.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".