Antimicrobial activity against a global collection of skin and skin structure pathogens: results from the Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial (T.E.S.T.), 2010–2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As part of the Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial (T.E.S.T.) we report antimicrobial resistance among Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates collected globally from integumentary sources between 2010 and 2014. METHODS: Minimum inhibitory concentrations and antimicrobial resistance were determined according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines (US Food and Drug Administration breakpoints against tigecycline). The Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to identify statistically significant changes in resistance. RESULTS: Global rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii were 38% and 43%, respectively. No S. aureus isolates were resistant to linezolid or vancomycin; all isolates were susceptible to tigecycline. Two percent of Enterococcus faecalis and 28% of Enterococcus faecium were vancomycin-resistant. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) producers accounted for 22% of Klebsiella pneumoniae and 16% of Escherichia coli. Resistance to minocycline among E. faecalis, E. faecium, K. pneumoniae, and E. coli decreased significantly (p<0.0001). There were significant increases (p<0.0001) in A. baumannii resistance to cefepime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, levofloxacin, meropenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: Among isolates from integumentary sources, rates of MRSA and ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae are stabilizing. Carbapenems and tigecycline have retained their in vitro activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. Few agents were active against A. baumannii; its increasing resistance is cause for concern.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".