Evolution of in vitro antimicrobial resistance in an equine hospital over 3 decades.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identified antimicrobial resistance patterns of commonly isolated bacteria at the Equine Hospital of the Université de Montréal between 2007 and 2013, and compared the results with the resistance patterns observed in tests performed in previous decades in the same hospital. A total of 396 antimicrobial susceptibility tests were analyzed by the Kirby-Bauer method during the period 2007 to 2013 and compared to 233 and 255 tests completed in 1986 to 1988 and 1996 to 1998, respectively. The most common bacteria were Streptococcus equi subsp. zooepidemicus (S. zooepidemicus) and Escherichia coli. Except for resistance of coagulase-positive staphylococci to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, there was no overall increase in resistance observed between 1986 to 1988 and 2007 to 2013 for antimicrobials reported for all 3 periods. However, between 1996 to 1998 and 2007 to 2013, there was an increase in in vitro resistance to enrofloxacin for E. coli and Enterobacter spp., and to ceftiofur for Enterobacter spp. and coagulase-positive staphylococci. No increase in resistance was observed for S. zooepidemicus and no isolate was resistant to penicillin.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".