MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903045463 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1019

1186. Prevalence of Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in Hospital Drains in Southern Ontario

2018· article· en· W2903045463 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alainna Jamal, Mahin Baqi, Sergio Borgia, William Cicotelli, Kornelija Delibasic, Kevin Katz, Jennie Johnstone, Roberto G. Melano, Matthew Muller, Sharon O’Grady, Samir N. Patel, David Richardson, Aimee Paterson, Angel Li, Allison McGeer

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioSinai Health SystemNorth York General HospitalMarkham Stouffville HospitalBrampton Civic HospitalGrand River HospitalWilliam Osler Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShowerMedicineHygieneVeterinary medicineEnterobacterSink (geography)MicrobiologyBiologyGeneGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hospital waste water systems are an emerging reservoir for CPE. We aimed to describe the prevalence of CPE in hospital drains in southern Ontario, where patients are rarely colonized/infected by CPE. Methods Ten Ontario hospitals identified rooms occupied by CPE+ inpatients from 2007 to 2017. Drain swabs from patient rooms and communal shower rooms were inoculated into BHI + 10% Dey-Engley neutralizing broth and incubated overnight, then PCR on enriched broth for carbapenemase genes as well as culture on McPOD/McMEM were performed. Results Over 10 years in 10 hospitals, 343 CPE+ inpatients exposed 1,205 drains (852 sinks, 353 bathtub/shower drains) in 501 patient rooms and 71 communal shower rooms. 53 (4%) drains in 40 (8%) patient rooms and 10 (14%) communal shower rooms were CPE+ by PCR and culture. CPE+ drains were from 15/475 (3%) hand hygiene sinks, 4/352 (1%) bathroom sinks, 23/272 (9%) bathtubs/showers, and 11/81 (13.6%) communal showers. Eleven (21%) of the CPE+ drains contained 31 CPE gene/species combinations. Patient room drain CPE gene/species combinations are shown in Figure 1: eight (15%) matched the CPE gene/species combination of a room occupant, 23 (43%) matched gene only, and 23 (43%) did not match. 54% of drain isolates were Enterobacter spp. but 9% of patient isolates were Enterobacter spp. There were 155 (13%) additional drains with one or more genes detected by PCR but not culture; 94 (61%) contained VIM (88 bathtub, one bathroom sink, and five hand hygiene sink drains), 33 GES, 17 OXA, 16 IMP, 10 KPC, and five NDM. There were six drains where one or more genes were detected by culture but not PCR; four (67%) were bathtub/shower drains containing an OXA, one bathtub/shower drain containing an NDM, and one hand hygiene sink drain containing a KPC. Conclusion Hospital drains may become a reservoir for CPE, which may persist for years. Sensitivity of PCR and culture for detection of CPE and CP organisms may differ. The presence of “unmatched” drains suggests undetected patient colonization. Risk of transmission from drains to room occupants requires investigation. Disclosures 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)0.001
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207