MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810112672 · doi:10.1128/aac.00169-18

<i>In Vitro</i> Activity of Imipenem-Relebactam against Clinical Isolates of Gram-Negative Bacilli Isolated in Hospital Laboratories in the United States as Part of the SMART 2016 Program

2018· article· en· W2810112672 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Karlowsky, Sibylle Lob, Krystyna M. Kazmierczak, Katherine Young, Mary Motyl, Daniel F. Sahm

Bibliographic record

VenueAntimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMerck
KeywordsImipenemMicrobiologyBacilliIn vitroGramGram-negative bacteriaBiologyGram-negative bacterial infectionsMedicineVirologyAntibioticsBacteriaAntibiotic resistanceEscherichia coliGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Relebactam is a non-β-lactam, bicyclic diazabicyclooctane β-lactamase inhibitor of class A and class C β-lactamases, including Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs). It is in phase 3 clinical development in combination with imipenem/cilastatin. The in vitro activities of imipenem-relebactam, imipenem, and comparators were determined using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) reference broth microdilution method for isolates of Enterobacteriaceae ( n = 3,419) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ( n = 896) collected in 2016 by 21 U.S. hospital laboratories participating in the SMART (Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends) global surveillance program. Relebactam was tested at a fixed concentration of 4 μg/ml. Imipenem-relebactam MICs were interpreted using CLSI breakpoints for imipenem. Rates of susceptibility to imipenem-relebactam and imipenem for non- Proteeae Enterobacteriaceae ( n = 3,143) and P. aeruginosa were 99.1% (3,115/3,143) and 95.9% (3,013/3,143) and were 94.4% (846/896) and 74.7% (669/896), respectively. Relebactam restored imipenem susceptibility to 78.5% (102/130) of imipenem-nonsusceptible non- Proteeae Enterobacteriaceae and to 78.0% (177/227) of imipenem-nonsusceptible P. aeruginosa isolates. Susceptibility to imipenem-relebactam was 98.2% (444/452) and 82.2% (217/264) for multidrug-resistant (MDR) non- Proteeae Enterobacteriaceae and MDR P. aeruginosa , respectively. Given the ability of relebactam to restore susceptibility to imipenem in nonsusceptible isolates of both non- Proteeae Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa and to demonstrate potent activity against current MDR isolates of both non- Proteeae Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa , further development of imipenem-relebactam appears warranted.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations42
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntimicrobial Agents and ChemotherapySame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207