Antimicrobial resistance, prevalence of resistance genes, and molecular characterization in intestinal <i>Bacteroides fragilis</i> group isolates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the level of antimicrobial resistance in Bacteroides fragilis has increased, monitoring the antimicrobial susceptibility could be necessary. The objectives of this study were to (i) investigate the prevalence of species, the occurrence of reduced antimicrobial susceptibility (E-test method), and antibiotic resistance genes in the B. fragilis group and (ii) evaluate the prevalence of enterotoxigenic B. fragilis and the distribution of bft gene subtypes in hospitalized patients. As many as 475 isolates out of 250 stool samples were detected to be B. fragilis group by using conventional biochemical tests (API-32A system) and multiplex-PCR. In addition, 48.2%, 13.9%, 76.6%, and 1.2% of B. fragilis group isolates were resistant (according to EUCAST breakpoint) to piperacillin-tazobactam, meropenem, clindamycin, and metronidazole, respectively. Six metronidazole-resistant strains were isolated; B. fragilis (n: 3), B. thetaiotaomicron, B. vulgates, and B. ovatus. The presence of the cfiA, cepA, ermF, and nim genes was observed in 3.8%, 15.9%, 34.1%, and 0.7% of the B. fragilis isolates, respectively. One hundred thirty-two B. fragilis isolates (27.8%)and 21 B fragilis isolates (15.9%) turned out to be bft gene positive by multiplex-PCR; eleven isolates (52.4%) harbored bft-1, eight isolates (38%) harbored bft-2 isotypes, and two isolates (9.5%) harbored bft-3 isotype (16.66%). These bacteria harbor antimicrobial resistance genes that could be transferred to other susceptible intestinal strains. Further investigations on lineage analysis are needed for a better understanding of these bacteria in Iran.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".