MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397269805 · doi:10.1080/14787210.2016.1188004

Tackling antimicrobial resistance in lower urinary tract infections: treatment options

2016· review· en· W2397269805 on OpenAlexafffund
Johann Pitout, Wilson Chan, Deirdre L. Church

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anti-infective Therapy · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersCalgary Laboratory Services
KeywordsAntimicrobialUrinary systemAntibiotic resistanceMedicineAnti-Infective AgentsIntensive care medicineMicrobiologyInternal medicineAntibioticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common infectious diseases occurring in either the community or healthcare settings. A wide variety of bacteria are responsible for causing UTIs, however extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli or ExPEC) remains the most common etiological agent. Since 2000, resistance to antibiotics emerged globally among ExPEC and is causing delays in appropriate therapy with subsequent increased morbidity and mortality. AREAS COVERED: The aim of this review article is to provide an overview on the definitions, etiology, treatment guidelines (including agents for infections due to antimicrobial resistant bacteria) of lower UTIs and to highlight recent aspects on antimicrobial resistance of ExPEC. Expert commentary: For patients with acute uncomplicated lower UTIs, nitrofurantoin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, fosfomycin or pivmecillinam should be prescribed for a 1-5 day course depending on the agent used. Single-dose fosfomycin is an excellent option for uncomplicated lower UTIs and has had similar clinical and/or bacteriological efficacy for 3- or 7-day regimens for alternate agents (i.e., ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, cotrimoxazole or nitrofurantoin).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anti-infective TherapySame topicUrinary Tract Infections ManagementFrench-language works237,207