Prevalence and Characterization of Macrolide Resistance in Clinical Isolates of <i>Streptococcus pneumoniae</i> and <i>Streptococcus pyogenes</i> from North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance to macrolides is not a new phenomenon but it deserves attention because of the widespread use of these agents and their inclusion in many clinical guidelines for respiratory tract infections. The most common mechanisms by which Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes develop resistance to macrolides is by target site modification (erythromycin ribosome methylase, erm) and efflux of the drug out of the organisms (macrolide efflux, mef). Target site modification may be of greater concern because it confers high-level resistance to all antimicrobials in the macrolide-lincosamide-streptograminB (MLSB) group. The genotype profiles of macrolide-resistant S. pneumoniae and S. pyogenes differ somewhat across regions in the US and between the US and Canada and other countries. There is some evidence for an association between macrolide resistance and treatment failure but this must be researched more fully. S. pneumoniae and S. pyogenes isolates resistant to macrolides are generally susceptible to ketolide antimicrobials because these agents bind more strongly to the relevant domain of the ribosomal subunit (withstanding erm resistance) and are less vulnerable to efflux compared to the macrolides.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".