MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2793121430

Characterization of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae with resistance or reduced susceptibility to carbapenems isolated from Canadian hospitals from 2007-2010

2011· dissertation· en· W2793121430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Franil Tailor

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKlebsiella pneumoniaeMicrobiologyEscherichia coliKlebsiellaAntibiotic resistanceBiologyAntibioticsMedicineGeneticsGene
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates were obtained from the Canadian Ward Surveillance Study (CANWARD) and underwent in vitro susceptibility testing to determine prevalence and antimicrobial resistance patterns. The prevalence was found to be relatively stable over the years although there was an increase in prevalence among the K. pneumoniae isolates; 1.1% to 1.3% to 2.5% to 2.6% in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. Genotypic characterization was conducted on ESBL, AmpC, carbapenemase genes, and outer membrane porins. The highest proportion of isolates were found to produce CTX-M-15 β-lactamase. Only 1 of each KPC-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae was found. Porin alteration was found to be a factor leading to carbapenem reduced susceptibility among isolates. Genetic relatedness of CRS/CIR E. coli and K. pneumoniae was determined using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. The spread of these organisms was mainly due to polyclonal spread rather than one specific clone.

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)0.001
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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria→French-language works237,207→