MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902538604 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1822

2166. Preparedness for <i>Candida auris</i> in Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP) Hospitals, 2018

2018· article· en· W2902538604 on OpenAlexaffabout
Felipe Garcia Jeldes, Allison McGeer, Amrita Bharat, Robyn Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of TorontoSinai Health System
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCandida aurisMedicineInfection controlPreparednessClinical microbiologyFluconazoleOutbreakAntifungalMicrobiologyIntensive care medicinePathologyDermatologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C. auris is a rapidly emerging pathogen which is potentially multidrug resistant, has caused large hospital outbreaks, and is difficult to identify in the routine microbiology laboratory. We surveyed CNISP sites to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPAC) and microbiology laboratory (MICRO) preparedness. An electronic survey with five IPAC and 12 MICRO questions was sent out to IPAC and MICRO leads for all CNISP sites in January 2018. Data were entered and analyzed in Excel. We received 32 IPAC surveys representing 58/66 (88%) CNISP hospitals, and 27 MICRO surveys representing 27/32 (84%) CNISP labs. Four of 58 (7%) hospitals have a written policy for C. auris screening of patients; and 22 (38%) recommend screening; most commonly: roommates of any patient colonized/infected with any C. auris (n = 7), room/wardmates (RWM) of patients colonized/infected with any C. auris (n = 7) or RWM of patients with MDR C. auris (n = 3). Without resource limitations, 50 (86%) hospitals would screen RWM of C. auris patients and 34 (59%) would screen patients previously hospitalized in the Indian subcontinent. Overall, 13/27 (48%) labs identify all clinically significant Candida spp. to the species level and 13 identify sterile site (SS) isolates. Twenty-two (81%) labs use MALDI-TOF for identification: 10 Bruker Biotyper and 12 VitekMS. 26 (96%) labs refer non-identified species and commonly misidentified yeast from SS for definitive identification. Twenty-three (85%) labs perform antifungal susceptibility testing for all Candida from blood and CSF. Twenty-two (81%) labs are confident that their current laboratory protocol would identify C. auris if the isolate is from an SS, 17 (63%) if identified as being resistant to at least 1 antifungal and 20 (74%) if the isolate is from a non-SS culture and is identified to the species level. Four (15%) labs have a protocol for C. auriscolonization detection. Four labs have identified six C. auris isolates: two reported retrospective identification of three fluconazole susceptible C. auris; and two reported one resistant and two MDR isolates identified prospectively in 2017/2018. MDR C. auris have been identified in Canada. Gaps remain in ensuring reliable identification of C. auris, particularly from non-SS, and most IPAC CNISP teams and MICRO do not yet have protocols for identification of C. auriscolonization. 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207