MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754088524 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.202

Prevalence of Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in Hospital Drains and Relationship to Patient Isolates in Toronto, Canada

2017· article· en· W2754088524 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alainna Jamal, Jennie Johnstone, Kevin Katz, Allison McGeer, Matthew Muller, Nadeem Khan, Vita Koren, Angel Li, Aimee Paterson, Renata Carneiro Ferreira Souto, Lin Tang, Cameron Thomas, Wil Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreSt. Michael's HospitalMount Sinai HospitalSinai Health SystemNorth York General HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShowerMeropenemHygieneEmergency medicineOutbreakInfection controlIntensive care unitSurgeryInternal medicineMicrobiologyVirologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hospital water environments are a reservoir for Gram-negative bacterial pathogens, and transmission of CPE from hospital drains to patients has been reported. We assessed the prevalence of hospital drain contamination with CPE and compared drain and patient isolates. Four Toronto acute care hospitals identified all rooms occupied by patients with CPE from 2007 to 2016. Swabs from hand hygiene sink/bathroom sink/bathtub drains in these patient rooms and from communal shower drains were incubated in BHI overnight then subbed to MacConkey with cefpodoxime. Meropenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae were screened for carbapenemases. Drain and patient isolates were compared by PFGE and WGS. A total of 78 patients with CPE exposed 178 patient rooms and 17 communal shower rooms, resulting in 356 cultured drains; 14 (3.9%) yielded CPE (Table 1). Eight (3.1%) sink, three (4.3%) bathtub, and three (10.0%) communal shower drains yielded CPE. Of the CPE+ drains, five (35.7%) matched the species/gene combination of the CPE patient who occupied the room, five (35.7%) matched the gene only, and four (28.6%) did not match. All matches were to patient occupants from 2014 and later. There were no CPE+ drains at hospital A. At hospital B, KPC-E. cloacae (KPC-EC) from two communal shower drains on one unit were identical/highly related to those from four patients admitted between 2014 and 2016; two of whom had stayed on that unit. At hospital C, the 4 CPE+ drains were in three patient rooms on one unit, with one KPC-EC from a bathtub drain identical to those from two patients admitted in 2014; one of whom had stayed in a different room on that unit. CPE+ drains at hospital D were from seven patient rooms and one communal shower room on five units. Failure to prevent CPE contamination of sinks, even at hospitals where CPE is rare, may result in the establishment of a persistent CPE reservoir within facilities. The risk of transmission to subsequent room occupants merits urgent study. Table 1. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207