Comparison of antimicrobial resistance patterns in Streptococcus pneumoniae from respiratory and blood cultures in Canadian hospitals from 2007–16
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the epidemiology and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Streptococcus pneumoniae collected from respiratory and blood culture samples in Canada between 2007 and 2016. METHODS: S. pneumoniae strains were obtained from Canadian hospitals as part of the ongoing national surveillance study, CANWARD. Isolates were serotyped using the Quellung method. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the CLSI broth microdilution method. MDR and XDR were defined as resistance to three or more and five or more classes of antimicrobials, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 2581 S. pneumoniae isolates collected, 1685 (65.3%) and 896 (34.7%) were obtained from respiratory and blood samples, respectively. Respiratory isolates demonstrated lower rates of antimicrobial susceptibility than blood isolates to penicillin, ceftriaxone, clarithromycin, clindamycin, doxycycline and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (P ≤ 0.03). From 2007 to 2016, invasive isolates demonstrated trends towards increasing penicillin susceptibility and decreasing clarithromycin susceptibility. MDR was significantly higher in respiratory S. pneumoniae compared with blood (9.1% versus 4.5%, P < 0.0001). Serotypes 11A, 16F, 19F, 23A/B/F, 34, 35B and non-typeable strains were more commonly isolated from respiratory specimens, while 4, 5, 7F, 8, 12F, 14 and 19A were more commonly invasive serotypes. Numerous serotypes, including 3 and 22F, were isolated frequently from both specimen sources. CONCLUSIONS: S. pneumoniae from respiratory samples demonstrated lower antimicrobial susceptibilities and higher MDR in a greater diversity of serotypes than isolates obtained from blood. Many serotypes were associated with one specific specimen source, while others were associated with both; genetic characterization is necessary to elucidate the specific factors influencing the ability of these serotypes to commonly cause both invasive and non-invasive disease.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".