Determination of Susceptibility to Fosfomycin and Tigecycline of Enterobacteriaceae, Particularly <i>Escherichia coli</i> Isolates, Producing Extended‐Spectrum β‐Lactamases from Multiple Regional Canadian Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The worldwide spread of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, particularly Escherichia coli, has significantly limited therapeutic options, especially for urinary tract infections. Although limited in their indications, fosfomycin and tigecycline are potential agents to treat infections due to ESBL-producing organisms. Although not routinely performed, susceptibility testing to both is necessary to ensure there is not an increase in resistance. METHODS: A total of 160 isolates of ESBL-producing E coli were isolated from patients at multiple regional hospitals in the Interior Health Region of British Columbia from June 2009 to January 2012. Isolates were obtained from various body fluids and sites including urine (78.2%), wounds, blood, gall bladder drain and respiratory specimens. All isolates were tested using the E-test method (Etest, bioMérieux, France) for tigecycline and Kirby Bauer disk diffusion method for fosfomycin using European Committee of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing breakpoints for tigecycline and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute zone sizes for fosfomycin. RESULTS: All 160 isolates were found to be susceptible to tigecycline, while five isolates (3.1%) were resistant to fosfomycin (four resistant, one intermediate). CONCLUSION: Although resistance to these antibiotics has previously been reported, the present study confirmed that isolates of ESBL-producing E coli from the Interior Health Region of British Columbia remain highly susceptible to both tigecycline and fosfomycin.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".