Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of invasive isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae from Canadian patients: the SAVE study, 2011–15
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To assess antimicrobial susceptibility for 14 agents tested against 6001 invasive isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae cultured from invasive patient samples from 2011 to 2015 as a part of the annual SAVE study. Methods: Isolates of S. pneumoniae were tested using the standard CLSI broth microdilution method (M07-A10, 2015) with MICs interpreted by CLSI M100 27th Edition (2017) MIC breakpoints. Results: From 2011 to 2015, small but significant increases (P ≤ 0.05) in the percentage susceptibility for penicillin (interpreted by all three CLSI MIC breakpoint criteria) (increase of 1.7%-3.2%), clindamycin (3.1%) and ceftriaxone (interpreted by non-meningitis and meningitis CLSI MIC breakpoint criteria) (1.1%-1.5%) were observed. Susceptibility rates for clarithromycin and other commonly tested antimicrobial agents remained unchanged (P > 0.05) over the 5 year period. Isolates with an MDR phenotype (resistance to three or more antimicrobial agent classes) decreased significantly (P < 0.001) from 8.5% in 2011 to 5.6% in 2015. Antimicrobial susceptibility rates were not generally associated (P > 0.05) with patient gender (exception: clarithromycin) but were associated (P ≤ 0.05) with patient age (chloramphenicol and clindamycin) or specimen source (penicillin, doxycycline, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and clindamycin), as well as geographic location in Canada and concurrent resistance to penicillin or clarithromycin. Conclusions: The in vitro susceptibility of invasive isolates of S. pneumoniae in Canada to penicillin, clindamycin and ceftriaxone increased from 2011 to 2015, coincident with a significant decrease in MDR phenotypes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".